IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 1125 OF 2023 SAMAR KUMAR MAITY -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyendra Agarwal Ms. Anita Khatri Mr. Santu Das Adhikary For the State : Mr. Ooiseeroop Sinha Reserved on : 30.09.2026 Pronounced on : 07.10.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. The instant criminal revisional application has been brought before this Court by the petitioner, calling in question the legal validity, continuity, and sustainability of Chandipur Police Station Case No. 334 of 2022 dated 15.09.2022, corresponding to Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022, now pending before the learned Judge, Special Court under the Electricity Act, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, wherein cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 136(1)(a),(b) and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2 CRR 1125 OF 2023 2. To appreciate the true panorama of the controversy, let me first delve into the foundational facts and the factual matrix enveloping the lis. The petitioner, before this Court, is a law-abiding citizen and retired Indian Army personnel who served the nation with unblemished integrity from May 4, 1996, to May 31, 2022, and resides permanently at Plot No. 549, J.L. No. 103, Mouza Nankerchak, Village Nankerchak, Post Office-Nandapur, within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Chandipur, District Purba Medinipur,. The immediate cause for the genesis of this dispute revolves around an 8-meter Low Tension Overhead (LTOH) pre-stressed concrete (PCC) utility pole situated within the vicinity of the petitioner’s plot and land envelope. As early as December 09, 2016, the petitioner had formally approached the local distribution authorities, specifically the Station Manager of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), highlighting by way of a written representation, duly acknowledged with official seals, that the said pole had been damaged years prior, rendering it wireless and posing an immediate safety hazard as well as an impediment to structural developments on his property. Despite this timely administrative communication, no remedial action to remove the said damaged pole was ever undertaken by the utility authorities. 3. The friction escalated years later when, on July 14, 2022, the petitioner applied for and obtained a separate electricity connection for a family temple situated on his premises, which was duly effected by WBSEDCL under Consumer ID No. 203719154 (Meter No. LG0249872). However, local disputes erupted when certain villagers, arrayed as private 3 CRR 1125 OF 2023 opposite parties, high-handedly and illegally disconnected the temple’s service line in the petitioner’s absence. Seeking prompt administrative intervention, the petitioner lodged formal complaints with the Security Supervisor (S.S.) of the WBSEDCL office at Chandipur and local police station on August 17, 2022, and August 27, 2022 respectively. Instead of redressing the grievance or maintaining administrative neutrality, the Station Manager and Assistant Engineer of the Chandipur Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL adopted a hostile and adversarial stance. On August 29, 2022, and September 05, 2022, the utility office of WBSEDCL issued communications asserting that the new temple meter drew power from a different transformer instead of the one providing power supply to the meter already existing in the petitioner’s name and demanding cooperation to rectify, failing which connections would not be maintained. Deeply aggrieved by this administrative high- handedness, the petitioner escalated his grievances to higher administrative tiers, specifically approaching the Regional Manager, WBSEDCL, Tamluk Regional Office, on September 15, 2022, seeking a thorough investigation and proper restoration of the temple's service line. 4. In a classic and transparently retaliatory manoeuvre, upon learning of the petitioner's escalation to higher administrative authorities, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a criminal complaint at Chandipur Police Station on the exact same date, September 15, 2022, at 19:25 hours, which came to be registered as Chandipur P.S. Case No. 334 of 2022 under Sections 136(1)(a),(b) and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The core, omnibus 4 CRR 1125 OF 2023 allegation in the FIR was that the petitioner had intentionally broken an LTOH 8-meter PCC pole during building construction, thereby damaging utility property of the WBSEDCL and creating a safety hazard, which subsequently led to the registration of Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022 before the Special Court, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk. Concurrently, the petitioner pursued his constitutional remedies against the high-handed disconnection of electricity to his family temple by filing a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.A. No. 3721 of 2023, wherein a co-ordinate Bench by a considered judgment and order dated March 01, 2023, allowed the writ petition, holding that WBSEDCL is duty-bound to restore the electricity connection to the petitioner's temple along its original route at the earliest, without subjecting the petitioner to arbitrary obstacles. 5. Advancing his challenge before this Court, Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the criminal proceeding in Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022 is an absolute, patent abuse of the process of law, being entirely mala fide, vexatious, and instituted solely as a retaliatory counter-blast. It is submitted that the foundational allegation that the petitioner broke a utility pole on September 15, 2022, is inherently absurd and completely falsified by the petitioner’s own prior written communication dated December 09, 2016, wherein he had himself officially informed the utility authorities that the pole was already damaged and wireless years prior. Learned Counsel stresses that the timing of the FIR, lodged within hours of the petitioner submitting a formal grievance against the Station Manager to 5 CRR 1125 OF 2023 the Regional Manager on September 15, 2022, demonstrates clear executive vindictiveness and personal grudge. Furthermore, learned counsel relies upon the binding findings of this Court passed in W.P.A. No. 3721 of 2023, wherein the utility's high-handed actions regarding damage and restoration of the petitioner's temple service line were judicially condemned, arguing that the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in the absence of any statutory ingredients constitutes an intolerable persecution of a retired veteran. 6. To fortify his contentions on law, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed extensive reliance upon a catena of judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335] (paragraphs 62, 88, 100, 105), highlighting the parameters where the discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, [AIR 1960 SC 866] (paragraphs 8, 10, 11), on the exercise of inherent powers where no offence is disclosed or where the institution of the criminal proceedings is patently absurd; Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [(2023) 15 SCC 488], regarding the duty of courts to pierce through the veil of vexatious prosecutions borne out of personal vendettas; as well as Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060] (paragraphs 18–21); Anita Maurya & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2026 SCC OnLine SC 1519] 6 CRR 1125 OF 2023 (paragraphs 21–25); Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., [(2025) 4 SCC 78] (paragraph 20); Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [(2025) 3 SCC 612] (paragraphs 41–45); A.M. Mohan v. State rep. by SHO & Anr. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 2249] (paragraphs 19– 21); the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Mohit Chandra & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (C.R.R. No. 366 of 2025, paragraph 5); the judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Chandrasekar v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police [Criminal Appeal (MD). No. 54 of 2024, paragraph 18) and the judgment of the Patna High Court in Jamil Ahmad v. State of Bihar (Criminal Misc. Case No. 3371 of 2018, paragraph 13), all emphasizing that criminal process cannot be permitted to be weaponized to settle civil or administrative disputes or to shield official high-handedness. 7. Per contra, Mr. Ooiseeroop Sinha, the learned counsel representing the State and the WBSEDCL stoutly defended the continuation of the criminal proceedings, submitting that the FIR discloses cognizable offences under Sections 136(1)(a)(b) and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003, relating to the damage and destruction of public utility property and the creation of safety hazards. It is contended that factual disputes regarding whether the pole in question was damaged in 2016 or broken during building construction in 2022 are matters strictly reserved for determination by the learned Trial Court, and that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ought not to conduct a mini-trial or weigh disputed questions of fact at the threshold stage. 7 CRR 1125 OF 2023 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and upon a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings, case records, and rival contentions, the sole question that stands isolated for determination by this Court is; whether the criminal proceeding arising out of Chandipur P.S. Case No. 334 of 2022, corresponding to Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022, pending before the Special Court, Tamluk, suffers from patent mala fides, lack of essential statutory ingredients, and constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, thereby warranting quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 9. To arrive at a conclusive finding on the aforesaid question for determination, let me examine the statutory framework invoked and test the veracity of the prosecution’s allegations against the touchstone of settled jurisprudential parameters. The prosecution has initiated penal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 136 penalizes the theft, dishonest abstraction, and criminal damage of electric lines and materials, prescribing punishments for cutting, removing, or destroying utility apparatus. Section 139 penalises malicious or negligent destruction or injury to materials connected with electricity supply or damaging utility infrastructure, also prescribing punishments therefor. A bare reading of these penal provisions reveals that proof of a dishonest intention, malicious design, culpable negligence, or an overt act resulting in the 8 CRR 1125 OF 2023 unlawful destruction of utility property must be furnished to attract culpability under these provisions. 10. In the instant case, upon a meticulous scanning of the materials-on- record, the structural integrity of the prosecution case collapses under its own weight. It defies logic and basic human credulity that a consumer who had persistently petitioned the utility authorities since December 09, 2016, to remove or replace a damaged, wireless pole obstructing his property would suddenly execute an overt act of destruction six years later, timed precisely to coincide with his filing of administrative corruption and grievance complaints against the local Station Manager. The record unequivocally establishes that the FIR in question was lodged on September 15, 2022, at 19:25, mere hours immediately after the petitioner escalated his grievances to the Regional Manager of WBSEDCL regarding the high-handed disconnection of his temple's service line. This temporal proximity reveals all the hallmark indicia of a retaliatory counter-blast designed to silence a legitimate consumer grievance and pre-empt administrative scrutiny into the Station Manager's conduct. A penal statute of this nature cannot be permitted to be weaponized as a tool to settle personal scores or to circumvent administrative and civil disputes concerning electrical line maintenance and right-of-way. 11. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, as underscored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark authorities of Bhajan Lal (supra), that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with 9 CRR 1125 OF 2023 an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused to spite him due to a private and personal grudge, the extraordinary powers of the court must be exercised to prevent an abuse of judicial process and to secure the ends of justice. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali (supra), reiterated that when the allegations in a complaint or FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the face of it that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the continuation of such criminal persecution constitutes an egregious abuse of the process of the court. Furthermore, the judicial imprimatur already accorded to the petitioner's bona fides through the co-ordinate judgment of this Court passed in W.P.A. No. 3721 of 2023 (delivered on March 01, 2023), wherein WBSEDCL's actions were found legally unsustainable, reinforces the irresistible conclusion that the present criminal prosecution is an instrument of executive victimization rather than a genuine pursuit of criminal justice. 12. To brand a consumer as a criminal offender under Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act for an alleged destruction of a pole, despite written documentary evidence of a complaint by the petitioner himself from six years earlier shows that the pole in question was already reported as damaged and structurally compromised, is a clear perversion of the criminal justice delivery system. Allowing such a prosecution to proceed to trial would be an exercise in futility, an oppressive burden on the petitioner, and an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the 10 CRR 1125 OF 2023 continuation of Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022 against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and cannot be legally sustained. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, findings, and legal propositions, the criminal revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 1125 of 2023, is, therefore, allowed. 14. The entire proceeding relating to Chandipur Police Station Case No. 334 of 2022 dated September 15, 2022, corresponding to Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022, pending before the learned Judge, Special Court under the Electricity Act, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur initiated against the petitioner, along with all consequential orders, stands hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The petitioner/accused is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond, if any. 16. Pending connected application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly. 17. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Learned Special Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur for necessary information and compliance. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)