Inherent powers to quash an electricity theft charge may apply where the registered consumer is not shown to control the offending meter.

Section 482 CrPC may be used to quash a criminal charge to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, even though a second revision is barred under Section 397(3), where the record discloses a glaring illegality. On the facts, the inspection material showed the tenant in occupation, not the registered consumer, was found abstracting electricity through the connection standing in the consumer's name. Because liability under the Electricity Act attaches to the person who dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses energy, mere registration of the connection was insufficient without material linking the petitioner to the offending meter or abstraction. The charge for theft of energy was therefore held unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge framed against the petitioner and whether the petitioner, as a registered consumer, could be made criminally liable when the alleged dishonest abstraction of electricity was found in the custody and control of another occupant.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, and its exercise is not barred merely because a second revision is prohibited under Section 397(3) of that Code. Such power is to be used sparingly, but it may be exercised where a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice is apparent. On the facts, the inspection report and prosecution material indicated that the tenant in occupation was found abstracting electrical energy through the connection standing in the petitioner's name. Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act fastens liability on the person who dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses energy, and the statutory presumption operates against the consumer only where the relevant factual foundation is established. Mere registration of the connection in the petitioner's name, without material showing that he was the person abstracting or controlling the offending meter, did not justify framing of charge against him for theft of energy under Section 39 read with Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion: The charge against the petitioner was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was properly invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice, and the petitioner was relieved from the criminal proceedings and the consequential charge.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be exercised to quash a charge notwithstanding the bar on second revision where the material on record does not disclose the petitioner's criminal liability and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

---