Parveen Sabhlok v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-29.01.2026 PARVEEN SABHLOK ......PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent No.2.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) 1.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.1913 dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 registered in Police Station, Irrigation Power, Ambala, Challan i.e. the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P-2), the order framing charges (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that though an earlier FIR had been registered against him, the

-2said case ended in his acquittal. The registration of the instant FIR though illegal, nevertheless, it being his first offence, he having been acquitted in the earlier case, the respondent-Electricity Department is bound to consider his case for compounding in terms of Section 152 of the Electricity Act.

3.

The learned State counsel along with the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Electricity Board, however, state that while it is true that in the earlier case registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted, there was another checking of the premises which had taken place in August, 2010 for which an FIR had not been registered. Therefore, the present one is the second offence. They, however, admit that for the first offence compounding under Section 152 of the Electricity Act is permissible.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

A perusal of the record would reveal that in the first FIR registered against the petitioner regarding checking on 02.09.2011 bearing No.329 dated 29.09.2011 under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Baldev Nagar, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 22.02.2013. Though, a reference has been made to another checking of the premises of the petitioner on 13.08.2010, however no case was registered and as such, the present FIR can be considered to be his first offence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 6.

As Section 152 of the Electricity Act permits compounding of the first offence, therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash FIR No.1913

-3dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure P-1), the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P-2) and the order framing charges (Annexure P-3), subject to the petitioner approaching the Electricity Department within a period of 07 days and making the requisite payment of an amount of Rs.1,69,625/- (as provided by the officials of the Electricity Department in Court) within a period of 01 month thereafter. 7.

Needless to say, in case the aforementioned payment is not made within the stipulated period, the respondent/complainant-Electricity Department shall be at liberty to revive the instant petition. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 29.01.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No