HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34852 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for Electricity Department and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 28.09.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Electricity Act), Kairana, Shamli as well as entire proceedings of Special Case no. 1157 of 2023 (State vs. Naushad) arising out of Case Crime no. 3682 of 2020 under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, PS- Anti-Power Theft Thana Shamli, District Shamli. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that present FIR has been lodged against applicant by opposite party no. 2 over the allegation that applicant was found operating tube well motor by means of electricity supply through illegal tapped connection. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned vide order dated 13.03.2023 which has been challenged through instant application. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that firstly the connection with which applicant has been shown using electricity is in the name of his father who is paying the electricity bill regularly. Secondly, it has been argued that from perusal of records as well as statement recorded by informant as well as transcriber of FIR, it is apparent that FIR has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Naushad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narendra Kumar Tiwari Naushad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) lodged after delay of six days which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Per contra, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for Electricity Department and learned AGA for State although vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that it is apparent from the statement recorded by transcriber of FIR as well as narration of the FIR itself that incident of dated 24.11.2020 has been intended to lodge on dated 30.11.2020 and the same is not permissible as per proviso of Section 135(1- A) which is reproduced herein below: "Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection." 7. From perusal of aforesaid provision as well as the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that FIR has been lodged after delay of 6 days from the date of commission of offence which is not sustainable hence, in view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, impugned cognizance order dated 13.03.2023 along with entire proceeding of Special Case no. 1157 of 2023 (State vs. Naushad) arising out of Case Crime no. 3682 of 2020 under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amendment), 2003, PS- Anti-Power Theft Thana Shamli, District Shamli are hereby set aside only in respect of applicant herein. 8. However, Electricity Department will be at liberty to recover the amount, if so due, which is liable to be realized from the applicant. 9. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly. September 18, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 34852 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad