1 / 5 2025:CGHC:56034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3465 of 2025 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Shri Guruvachan Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Near Purana Gurudwara, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, C.G. (Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, C.G.) ... Applicant versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through Prita Devi Ekka, Assistant Engineer CSPDCL, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, C.G. ( Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13/02/2025 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Second Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya, passed in Special Sessions Case No.16/2019 whereby the application of compromise filed by the applicant and the respondent has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent lodged a criminal ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.24 16:55:52 +0530 2 / 5 complaint against the applicant for an offence under section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003), with an allegation that on 2/6/2017, on inspection to the applicant's house, who is the owner of the residential accommodation, having Electric Connection No. 1004503430 some manipulation was found in the meter and same was running slow and in this way, the applicant committed theft of electricity of 37413 units, and committe offence and that cause loss to the company to the tune of Rs 6,60,760/-. A demand notice was sent to the applicant of the above amount and thereafter a criminal complaint was lodged on 29/3/2019 before the Learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya CG. The applicant paid the amount of Rs. 6,60,760/- to the respondent in installment and respondents also issued certificate to the this effect on 3/10/2024. The applicant moved an application for compromising the matter on 3/10/2024, as the whole amount has been paid to the respondents, though no offence was committed by the applicant, but in spite of that the loss which occurred to the respondents have been compensated. Respondent filed the reply to the application for compromise and in that also respondents admit that they have received Rs. 6,60,760/- and no balance is remaining and they have no objection and the only objection was made that application is against section 152 of the Act. 3. Learned Trial Court rejected the application of compromise on the ground that applicant was having one more offence and same was compromised by the department, hence second offence cannot be compromised, hence the application is rejected vide order dated 3 / 5 13/2/2025. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the offence is not a heinous offence and further have no effect in the society. He would next contend that the applicant has already paid the amount of loss suffered by the respondent. He would next contend that once the complainant has accepted the amount of demand notice in full and final settlement of loss occurred by respondents nothing remain the matter. He would next contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that the disputes which primarily and basically are civil or financial in nature and the matter stands settled between the parties and the aggrieved party has no objection, such criminal proceedings can be quashed as it would be an exercise in futility causing undue hardship and harassment to the parties and would amount to an abuse of process of law. He would next contend that the matter is completely of civil nature and unnecessary color of criminal had been given and when once the matter is compromise, the proceeding ought to have been quashed and continue with the proceeding is nothing but a complete misuse of process of law, therefore, the order dated 13/02/2025 may kindly be quashed and the proceedings of Special Sessions Case No.16/2019 may kindly be closed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan and Others {(2019) 5 SCC 688} and the law laid down in the matter of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another {(2022) 19 SCC 451}. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has admitted the fact that the demand 4 / 5 of money towards the loss sustained amounting to Rs.6,60,760/- has already been paid by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. He further accepted the fact that both the parties have filed the compromise application before the trial Court which has been rejected only on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 152 (4) the compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the record it is crystal clear that the dispute between the parties is with regard to financial loss sustained by the respondent, which has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and they had already settled the dispute and filed application for compromise of the matter. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaswant Singh (supra) has held thus in para 21 & 22 as under:- 21. In our considered view, the High Court erred in firstly not considering the entire material on record and further in not appreciating the fact that the dispute, if any, was civil in nature and that the complainant had already settled his score with the main accused Gurmeet Singh against whom the proceedings have been closed as far back as 26-9-2014. In this scenario, there remains no justification to continue with the proceedings against the appellant. 22. For all the reasons recorded above on facts and on law both the present appeals deserve to be allowed. The impugned proceedings arising out of FIR No. 179 dated 29-10-2009, PS Fatehgarh Sahib and all consequential proceedings stand quashed qua the appellant. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 5 / 5 Court, in the facts of the present case, since the offence is not henious and has not affected the society adversely and further petitioner has already paid the amount of loss suffered by the respondent. Having considered the entire material placed on record, the submissions advanced, and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 as well as the proceedings of Special Session Case No. 16/19 pending before the Learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Second District Judge, Manendragarh, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. No prima facie material is found to justify the framing or continuation of the charges against the applicant. Accordingly, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the present CRMP deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2025 is hereby quashed and the applicant stands discharged/acquitted from all the charges in Special Session Case No. 16/19. The pending proceedings are directed to be closed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu