Gauhati High Court
Raju Choudhury vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 3 August, 2026
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010061772022
2026:GAU-AS:10653
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./272/2022
RAJU CHOUDHURY
S/O LATE NURUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY, R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD
NO. 12, P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-01
3:BIDHU BHUSAN DEB
THE THEN SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
LALA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
C/O THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
HAILAKANDI
PIN-78815
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P N GOSWAMI (r-3),MR. K P PATHAK (r-3),SC,
APDCL
Page No.# 2/9
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 03.08.2026
Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the
Special (Electricity) Case No. 20/2020 arising out of ASEB P.S. Case No. 44/2019,
pending before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, wherein by order dated
10.07.2020, cognizance of offence was taken under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,
2003.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Sub-Divisional Engineer of the
concerned Electrical Sub-Division lodged an F.I.R. on 27.07.2019 alleging, inter alia,
that the petitioner had continuously defaulted in payment of electricity dues in
respect of his service connection, on account of which the electricity supply to the
premises had been disconnected.
4. Initially, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003
read with Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, upon receipt of the
records of P.R. Case arising out of ASEB P.S. Case No. 44/2019, along with the case
diary and Charge Sheet No. 41 dated 29.12.2019, the learned Special Judge, Cachar,
Silchar, by order dated 10.07.2020, on perusal of the materials available on record,
took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,
2003 against the petitioner.
5. Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits
that no offence of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is made out on the face of
the allegations made in the F.I.R. He accordingly, submits continuance of the criminal
proceedings is totally unjustified.
Page No.# 3/9
6. Mr. S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, in his usual fairness, submits
that Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, pertains to theft of electricity. However,
in response to a pointed query put by this Court as to whether the F.I.R. contains
any allegation of theft of electricity, he fairly submits that no such allegation has
been made therein.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and having
perused the materials available on record, it appears that upon the investigation
having been completed and Charge Sheet submitted, the learned Special Judge,
Cachar, Silchar, took cognizance under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
8. The F.I.R. on the basis of which the present proceeding has been initiated,
reads as under: –
“No:- SDE/LESD/APDCL/G-17/19-20/141 Dated- 27/07/2019
To,
The Officer-in-charge
ASEB, Police Station
Meherpur, Silchar
Sub:-FIR against Raju Choudhury, Monacherra, a 3 Phase
consumer under Lala ESD, APDCL
Sir,
With reference to the above, I would like to inform you that I
have disconnected a 3 Phase service line of a defaulting consumer
named Raju Choudhury, Monacherra, bearing consumer number
13400020555 having bill amount of Rs 41,539 on 25/07/2019. He
is a defaulting consumer as he paid his last bill amounting to Rs
52,848.00 on 29/03/2019. After that he did not pay his energy
bill. He always pays his energy bill in intervals of 5 to 6 months.
Whenever our line staff/J.M went to his premises for disconnection,
he obstructed them by showing some casual excuses and creating
an unhealthy environment. Therefore due to the alarming urge for
upliftment of the revenue, I, myself went to disconnect the
concerned electricity service line along with my official staff, but
unfortunately this time also his employees obstructed us from
Page No.# 4/9disconnecting his service line. However, I could manage to
disconnect his line and handed over a duplicate copy of his Energy
bill to his employees.
Yesterday, that on 26/07/2019 he came to my office with
some miscreants and threatened me that he won’t let me continue
my service in his district. They also threatened to abuse me
physically.
I went there to discharge my duties as an officer of APDCL but
his employees obstructed me in performing my duties. Moreover,
his act of threatening continued when he turned up In my office
and warned me of physical abuse.
This is for Information and necessary action.
Yours faithfully
Sub Divisional Engineer
Lala Electrical Sub Division”
9. The principle of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
the F.I.R. is well settled by number of cases of the Hon’ble Apex Court. These
parameters are hereunder: –
“(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 information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(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 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.
Page No.# 5/9
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
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.”
10. The prosecution case, as reflected from the F.I.R., is that the petitioner had
been continuously defaulting in payment of electricity dues in respect of his
electricity service connection, on account of which the electricity supply to the
premises was disconnected.
11. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read as under:
“135. Theft of Electricity: — 1[(1) Whoever, dishonestly, —
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with
overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or
service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as
the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current
reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or
method which interferes with accurate or proper registration,
calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results
in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus,
equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so
damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or
accurate metering of electricity,
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
Page No.# 6/9
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the
usage of electricity was authorised,
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or
with fine or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or
used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or
attempted use –
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first
conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain
on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of
second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be
less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft
of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction
shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account
of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or
subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for
a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five
years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain
on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent
conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used
or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use
exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting
any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than
three months but may extend to two years and shall also be
debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any
other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means
not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may
be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the
consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any
abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly
caused by such consumer.
(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of
electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Page No.# 7/9
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as
authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any
other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the
rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply
line of electricity:
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:
Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on
deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to
the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second
proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within
forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment.]
(2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be,]
authorized in this behalf by the State Government may –
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or
premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity
2[has been or is being,] used unauthorisedly;
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments,
wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is
being, used for unauthorized use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which
in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any
proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and
allow the person from whose custody such books of account or
documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts
therefrom in his presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf
shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized
in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such
occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic
places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and
sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying
such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating
Page No.# 8/9to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and
seizure under this Act.”
12. A plain reading of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 leaves no manner of
doubt that the provision criminalises dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of
electricity by adopting any of the methods enumerated therein, such as unauthorised
tapping of the electricity line, tampering with the meter, damaging metering
equipment, using a tampered meter, or using electricity for a purpose other than that
for which the supply was authorised. The gravamen of the offence is, therefore, the
dishonest theft or unauthorised abstraction or consumption of electricity.
13. In the present case, the allegations contained in the F.I.R., even if accepted in
their entirety, merely indicate that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of
electricity charges, resulting in disconnection of the electricity supply. There is no
allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had indulged in unauthorised abstraction or
dishonest consumption of electricity after such disconnection, or had resorted to any
of the acts contemplated under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 135(1) of the Act.
14. Mere non-payment of electricity dues, by itself, may give rise to civil
consequences under the Electricity Act and the applicable supply regulations,
including disconnection and recovery of outstanding charges. However, in the
absence of any allegation disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the registration of the criminal case and the
subsequent order dated 10.07.2020 taking cognizance under the said provision
cannot be sustained in law.
15. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed.
16. Accordingly, the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Cachar, Silchar in Special (Electricity) Case No. 20/2020 taking cognizance of the
Page No.# 9/9
offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the petitioner is hereby
set aside and quashed.
17. Since the allegations contained in the F.I.R., even if accepted at their face
value, do not disclose the commission of any offence punishable under Section 135
of the Electricity Act, 2003, the F.I.R. giving rise to ASEB P.S. Case No. 44/2019,
together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including Special
(Electricity) Case No. 20/2020 pending before the learned Special Judge, Cachar,
Silchar, stand quashed.
The criminal petition accordingly stands allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
