Cav Judgment:
1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the FIR of Nawada Town P.S. Case No.336 of 2023 dated 23.02.2023, registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on the basis of written report of respondent no.5.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as culled out from the records, are that the informant, who has been working as Junior Engineer (respondent no.5), gave a written report on 23.02.2023 for institution of FIR for theft of electricity against the petitioner with allegation that a raid was conducted at about 14.08 hours on 23.02.2023 in the press premises of the petitioner having Consumer No. 100452029, namely ‘Magadh Ki Pukar’ and it was detected that in his residence the petitioner had directly connected from pole to his main board of changer by connecting two hot wires and one earthing wire. After the changer, six hot wires and six earthing wires were taken out and one hot wire and one earthing wire were put in input of the meter, remaining five hot wires and five earthing wires were being used for theft of electricity in the whole premises. Further allegation has been levelled that the petitioner did not allow any meter reader to take reading of the meter and did not allow the officials of electricity company for making inspection in the premises. The petitioner also used to give threats about lodging cases against them. Total electricity load of the premises was found to be 3162 watt. The loss caused by the theft to the electricity company was assessed to be Rs.85,925/-only. On the basis of aforesaid written report of the Junior Engineer Sujeet Kumar of South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SBPDCL’), Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 336 of 2023 has been registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. For quashing of the said FIR, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate and he also publishes Hindi Weekly newspaper by the name of ‘Magadh Ki Pukar’ from his residence. Due to continuous publication of news related to the Electricity Department, certain officials became annoyed and acting in connivance, falsely implicated the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that under the pretext of an electricity inspection drive, the informant and other officials of the SBPDCL along with staffs forcibly entered into the house of the petitioner. They used abusive and intimidating language and removed the seal of the meter without any authority. The officials demanded Rs.50,000/- as illegal gratification and threatened that if the money was not paid, a false case would be lodged and heavy penalty would be imposed. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been continuously making the payment of electricity bills and he never committed any theft of electricity. The petitioner was not even present at the time of inspection in his premises.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that this petitioner had earlier filed complaints before the higher authorities regarding illegal billing and harassment by the Executive Engineer namely Nirmal Kumar. On inquiry, the Electricity Department found the Executive Engineer guilty and transferred him vide Office Order No.851 dated 04.07.2023. Earlier the District Consumer Forum Case No.04/2013 was filed by this petitioner against the Electricity Department and compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- was awarded in favour of the petitioner on 22.01.2014. The officials of Electricity Company, thus, out of vengeance, have lodged the false and fabricated case without conducting proper inspection, without preparing any seizure list and without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the law.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, even in cases of excess load or misuse, criminal prosecution is not automatic and assessment procedure must be followed, but the same was ignored by the respondent authorities. The entire criminal proceeding is malicious and politically motivated and has been initiated only to harass the petitioner because of his journalistic work. In fact, no seizure memo, inspection report, or load assessment report has been prepared at the spot in terms of Section 135(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant Supply Code, rendering the entire proceeding illegal. The FIR has been lodged without final assessment of loss, without passing any speaking order and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is contrary to the settled provisions of law. At best, the allegations disclose only a billing or assessment dispute and the same is purely in civil nature and does not warrant criminal prosecution. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision dated 22.06.2026 of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Md. Shahid Imam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.W.J.C.No.645 of 2022).
6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no material on record to show dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner for invoking Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The FIR has been instituted as a counterblast to the petitioner’s resistance to illegal demand and coercive action by the electricity officials, amounting to misuse of criminal machinery. The learned counsel further submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to harassment causing grave prejudice to the petitioner and would violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the malafide of the respondent authorities is also evident from lodging another case against the petitioner as the respondents have conducted fresh inspection on 06.08.2026 and disconnected the electricity supply of the petitioner’s residential premises without serving any prior notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. Disconnection has been made during pendency of the present writ application.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had earlier instituted Complaint Case No.718 of 2023 before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Nawada against the concerned officials of the Electricity Company. Upon inquiry made under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has found a prima facie case and has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. The institution of the present criminal case and the subsequent disconnection of the petitioner’s electricity connection without prior notice are nothing but retaliatory actions against the petitioner undertaken with malafide intention to victimize the petitioner for pursuing lawful legal remedies against the officials of the electricity company. Therefore, the ongoing proceeding is an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed.
9. The learned counsel also submitted that an interlocutory application bearing I.A.No. 01 of 2026 has been filed for restoration of electricity connection of the petitioner’s residential premises.
10. Thus, learned counsel prays for quashing of the impugned FIR.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the SBPDCL vehemently contended that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the SBPDCL submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in this case showing falsity of the claims of the petitioner. During inspection made in the premises of the petitioner on 23.02.2023, the petitioner, having Consumer No. 100452029, was found indulging in theft of electricity as he had been using the electricity connection by bypassing the meter thereby causing loss to the company. The petitioner had been consuming electricity with load of 3.164 KW, whereas the sanctioned load was only 1 KW. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was found using one air conditioner, one water motor, two refrigerators, one washing machine, six fans and twelve LED bulbs in his premises. But the monthly consumption of only 10-20 units was being recorded in the meter and electricity bill of Rs.150-200/-per month was being issued, which was much less than the bill which would be issued for consumption of the aforementioned electric appliances. While conducting the raid, photographs were taken and videography of the illegal use and theft of electricity at the petitioner’s premises were duly recorded. Since the electricity was being dishonestly abstracted through illegal means, the prosecution was initiated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and not under Section 126 of the Electricity Act as it was not a case of unauthorized use of electricity through meter. After theft was detected, the inspection report and a loss assessment report were duly prepared and the same have been annexed with the FIR. All these documents pertaining to detection of theft of electrical energy were prepared at the place of inspection following the prescribed procedure and the son of the petitioner, who was present during raid, refused to affix his signature on the inspection report.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that the mode of committing theft by the petitioner has been described in detail in the written report leading to registration of the FIR. The petitioner firstly connected the changer directly with the pole and thereafter taking out a number of wires from this board bypassed the meter and thus caused loss of Rs.85,925/- to the Electricity Company.
13. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the claim of the petitioner about filing of a consumer case bearing District Consumer Forum Case No.04/2013 and certain orders being passed in the case, the same is unconnected with the present matter. However, the said proceeding pertains to the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-receipt of electricity bills and has no connection whatsoever with the present case relating to theft of electricity. The District Consumer Forum Case No. 04/2013 relates to a separate premises having different consumer number and pertains to petitioner’s press business establishment and is wholly unrelated to the present proceedings.
14. The learned counsel next submitted that whatever allegation has been made by the petitioner against the officials of the Electricity Department, the same is without any basis. Even the claim of the petitioner that one of the officials, namely Nirmal Kumar had been transferred on the complaint of the petitioner is not sustainable as the said transfer has nothing to do with the present matter. It appears the petitioner is taking advantage of his position and has been filing frivolous cases against the officials of the Electricity Company, thereby threatening them not to take action against the petitioner for his illegal and unlawful activities.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the FIR after much delay as the FIR has been instituted on 23.03.2023 and the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2026 i.e. after three years of the registration of the FIR. Recently, another FIR vide Nawada Town P.S. Case No.816/2026 has been instituted after an inspection was made on 06.08.2026 in the same premises of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner has not stopped committing theft of electricity. The petitioner was found to have cut the wire connected with the meter and was found to be using electricity by connecting PVC wire in LT AB Cable. During investigation, the total electricity load was found to be 6.932 KW and assessment was made about loss to SBPDCL to the tune of 55663 units of electricity. Therefore, the petitioner, without making payment for the earlier theft of electricity, further indulged in committing another theft and thereby caused a loss of Rs.8,82,336/- only by his second theft and thus total liability against the petitioner has accrued to Rs.9,68,261/- only.
16. The learned counsel thus submitted that there is neither any malafide on the part of the respondent authorities nor any abuse of process of law. If the petitioner is having any grievance against theft of electricity energy, he has got an alternative remedy in the form of statutory appeal before the competent authority/court. Otherwise, whatever submissions are being made towards quashing of the FIR, they are simply not sustainable considering the broad guidelines in this regard and the petitioner may take all his defence before the learned trial court.
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
18. The grounds for quashing of the FIR have been settled by various judicial pronouncements. The main grounds for quashing of the FIR are as follows :
(i) If the facts stated in the FIR and accepted at face value, prima facie do not show commission of any offence.
(ii) If the allegations do not make out a cognizable criminal case and the dispute appears to be civil in nature.
(iii) If the allegations are absurd, improbable or made out of a personal revenge or vengeance and shows malicious intent of the maker, the FIR could be quashed on the ground of it being malafide.
(iv) FIR can also be quashed if it contains omnibus or general allegations without mentioning specific role or providing credible material against the accused.
(v) FIR can also be quashed, if the specific law prohibits continuation of the criminal proceeding or the police lacks jurisdiction.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, has elaborately discussed the conditions under which the FIR can be quashed. It would be profitable to extract paragraph no.102 as under :-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
20. In this background of the settled position of law, the facts of the present case need to be examined.
21. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent officials of the Electricity Company have instituted the FIR in order to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner and with malafide intention as the petitioner has preferred a consumer case bearing District Consumer Forum Case No. 04/2013 against the electricity department, in which he succeeded and compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- was awarded in his favour. But the order in the said consumer case has been passed in 22.01.2014 as mentioned by the petitioner in his writ petition. Institution of the FIR after nine years would not make out a case of revenge or malafide act on the part of the respondent officials.
22. The second ground for malafide taken by the petitioner against the respondent officials is that being an Advocate and running a press, the petitioner was involved in highlighting misdeeds of the respondent officials. But no concrete material has been brought on record to show that what were these misdeeds and whether the respondent officials were specifically named or what material was publicized by the petitioner to show the wrongful act of the respondent officials. It is also not clear whether any action was taken on such complaint against the officials so named by the petitioner. It thus appears that merely vague allegations are being made by the petitioner to make out a case of malafide.
So far as complaint case filed by the petitioner is concerned, the same was filed against two persons namely Rajesh Prasad and Nirmal Kumar and it was filed in the year 2023. No date has been mentioned about the institution of this complaint but it appears subsequent to the institution of the impugned FIR. The complaint petition was not brought on record to assess its contents. However, from the order dated 17.11.2025, by which cognizance has been taken, it appears the accused persons have not been heard and there appears non- compliance of Section 223 of BNSS. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner about malafide conduct of the respondent officials is not supported by any cogent materials.
23. The petitioner has also claimed that no notice was served prior to the inspection of premises or registration of FIR. Such type of submission is beyond comprehension. If the authorities are going to inspect/check the premises for theft of electricity or other unlawful activities or misdemeanor, there is no requirement of serving any notice as service of notice would frustrate the whole purpose. From the record, I also find that inspection/seizure report has been prepared and provisional assessment of the electricity consumption by dishonest abstraction of electricity has also been made. Therefore, there is no material to show that the proper procedure was not followed.
24. So far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Md.Shahid (supra) is concerned, the facts are quite different. The learned Coordinate Bench was seized with the matter where no dishonest abstraction was found as the disconnection in that case was made on non-payment of the electricity dues and subsequently it was found that the petitioner reconnected his connection and has been using the same and meter has been showing reading for consumption. The learned Coordinate Bench disbelieved the claim of disconnection for want of documentation and considering the consumption pattern, found it to be a case of unauthorized use of electricity entailing only the civil liabilities, and thus, quashed the FIR. In the present case, allegation against the petitioner is that he was found stealing electricity by bypassing the meter. The meter reading hardly shows consumption commensurate with the appliances installed in the house of the petitioner. Subsequently, it also transpires another FIR has been instituted against the petitioner after three years of institution of the first FIR as the petitioner was found consuming the electricity by again committing theft.
25. The petitioner has filed I.A.No. 01/2026 for direction to the authorities for restoring his electricity supply pursuant to disconnection in the Nawada Town P.S. Case No.226/2023. Therefore, a question arises if the electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected in the year 2023, it appears quite surprising that the petitioner has been continuing without electricity for about three years and did not approach this Court or any other court either for quashing of the FIR or for seeking relief for restoration. Subsequent filing of the FIR also goes against the case of the petitioner because it shows his dubious conduct. The petitioner claims himself to be an Advocate and also claims he has been running a press and publishing a newspaper and claims that he is being victimized on this account. Such type of allegation cuts both ways as it is a double edged sword and the respondents are claiming that the petitioner being an influential person wants to subdue the authorities.
26. In any case, I do not find any grounds for quashing the Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 336/2023 as the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the guidelines issued in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), a locus classicus on this issue, or any other judicial pronouncement.
27. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed.
28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
