ORDER :— This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of orders dated 19-5-2006 and 30-10-2006 passed by the Electricity Court and to quash the Criminal Complaint No. 24 of 2006 and the proceedings arisen thereof, pending on the Board of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Electricity Court, Delhi (West).
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner-Corporation allotted a petrol pump under Kargil Martyr Scheme to the respondent No. 2 at Hari Nagar, Delhi. The allotment was on license basis and the electricity meter was got installed by the petitioner himself in its own name. The allotment letter contained following conditions in respect of use of electricity meter:
"6(b). The Corporation shall arrange for all electrical and water connections and shall pay the deposits, if any, required to be paid in connection with the Corporation's property mentioned in the Schedule I and II. The dealer shall however, pay all the bills for electricity and water consumed at the said Corporation's property as shown in the bills issued by the authorities concerned and such other expenses incurred by the dealer in running the dealership."
3. The respondent No. 2 was responsible for following all rules and regulations and bye-laws of State and Municipal bodies etc. in terms of Cl. 22(d) of the license agreement.
4. An inspection of the premises was carried out by a team of BSES officers on 18-3-2006 and at the time of inspection, it was found that meter box plastic seals Nos. D-59284-59286 were tampered with and re-affixed with some adhesive. The meter was made slower by the consumer by 80.25% i.e. if 100 units are consumed, the meter would show only 19.75 units. The inspection team opened the meter box and found that the meter terminal plastic seal No. 59282 was tampered and hologram half seals No. R l39052 and R l39053 were also tampered with. Both sides of the ultrasonic welding strips of the meter were found tampered and refixed. After finding the meter tampered and electricity being stolen on large scale, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and against respondent No. 2 for dishonest abstraction of electricity before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge, after recording pre-summoning evidence and after considering all documents of inspection, photographs of the meter and tampered seals, load report and the speaking order passed by the competent authority in respect of theft bill, prima facie found that a case was made out against the petitioner under S. 135 read with S. 151 of the Electricity Act (in short "the Act") and he issued summons to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 30-10-2006.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of abstraction of electricity, a theft bill for a sum of Rs. 16,06,510/- was raised against respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the State Commission for Consumer Protection and the said Commission directed respondent No. 1 to restore the electricity connection if already disconnected subject to payment of the bill to be raised strictly in terms of Section 56 of the Act on consumption pattern of preceding six months from the date of inspection. Against this order, the BSES filed a revision petition before the National Commission which was dismissed on 28-7-2006, BSES then preferred a review petition which is pending. It is submitted that the petitioner company, who allotted the petrol pump had nothing to do with the theft of electricity and the petitioner has been wrongly summoned under Section 150 of the Act on the allegations of abetment. There was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner abetted the theft of electricity. The petitioner prayed for quashing of orders summoning the petitioner and quashing of complaint itself.
6. It is surprising that the petitioner had come for quashing of complaint. On one hand, the petitioner argued that if any theft was committed, it was committed by respondent No. 2 and petitioner had no control over respondent No. 2 as far as abstraction of electricity is concerned and on the other hand, the petitioner also prayed for quashing of entire complaint which was made against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. This shows that this petition has been filed by the petitioner in league with the respondent No. 2.
7. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No. 1 that the electricity connection was obtained by the petitioner for its own consumption, on the petrol pump. Once the petitioner had obtained connection in its own name, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to see that the electric connection is used legally and lawfully. The respondent No. 2 is merely a licensee of the petitioner to sell petrol, as a dealer of the petitioner. The petitioner is the principal agent, who was selling petrol on the petrol pump and the petrol pump belongs to the petitioner. If adulterated petrol is sold or less petrol is sold to customers by tampering with pump meter or electricity is stolen, it is the responsibility of the petitioner and has a duty to do regular inspection and keep a check on the petrol pump. The petitioner cannot wash off its hands saying that it has nothing to do with the petrol pump once it gave license. The petitioner in its own petition has not stated if it had taken any action against respondent No. 2 when it discovered theft of electricity to the extent that meter was found slow by more than 80%. That shows that the electricity was being stolen either with connivance of the petitioner or with consent of the petitioner.
8. In 2005 (2) JCC 1082 Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, it has been held that powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. The Court shall not embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegations. The power can be used only to prevent the abuse of process of Court and cannot be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. I consider whether the theft is being done at the premises of principal agent by a licensee and the principal agent is keeping its eyes closed to the theft or other similar things done by the licensee, the charge of abatement of the offence is prima facie made out. The abetment is not only done by the positive act, the abetment can also be done by the omission to do the positive act by one who is responsible to act.
9. In view of the my foregoing discussion, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. However, the observations made hereinabove, shall have no effect on the merits of the case.
Petition dismissed.
