Accepted payment of the transformer installation estimate rendered continued prosecution an abuse of process.

The petitioner, a designated partner of Aditya Niwas Developers LLP, sought to quash Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2018 and the order taking cognizance under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The allegation concerned non-compliance with procedures for installing a transformer and non-payment of its estimated cost.

The petitioner maintained that he had purchased the transformer under the Own Your Transformer Scheme and applied for its installation on 6 February 2018; he also disputed the informant’s authority to lodge the FIR.

The estimated amount of Rs. 46,409 was paid to, and accepted by, SBPDCL on 23 February 2018.

The judgment refers to the FIR as dated 17 February 2018, although the petitioner’s submission states that it was lodged on 7 February 2018.

1. Whether, in light of payment and acceptance of the transformer’s estimated cost, continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed in view of the petitioner’s objections concerning the informant’s competence and the form of the cognizance order.

The prosecution was initiated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in the circumstances of the case, their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The petitioner also invoked the 31 May 2013 notification concerning the competent officer and Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1968, for the proposition that statutory power must be exercised by the authority on whom it is conferred; these were submissions, not grounds expressly adopted in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court relied principally on the documentary proof that the petitioner had paid the estimated amount of Rs. 46,409 and SBPDCL had accepted it.

Considering that payment and the nature of the allegation, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no proper purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court did not separately determine the petitioner’s objections concerning the informant’s authority or the printed-form cognizance order.

The application was allowed.