Retaliatory Electricity Act prosecution lacking essential statutory ingredients constitutes an abuse of process.

The petitioner challenged Chandipur P.S. Case No. 334 of 2022 and the resulting Sessions Case (Elec.) No. 856 of 2022, in which cognizance had been taken under Sections 136(1)(a), 136(1)(b) and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The prosecution alleged that he damaged an 8-metre PCC electricity pole during construction.

The petitioner relied on a written complaint to WBSEDCL dated 9 December 2016, stating that the pole was already damaged, and argued that the FIR was retaliatory because it was lodged on 15 September 2022, the day he escalated a separate electricity-supply grievance to a senior WBSEDCL official.

He also relied on a 2023 judgment directing restoration of the temple’s electricity connection.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the pole’s condition and the circumstances of its damage were factual matters for trial.

Whether the criminal proceeding arising from Chandipur P.S. Case No. 334 of 2022 disclosed the essential ingredients of the invoked offences and was free from mala fides, or instead constituted an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court considered Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003, treating them as requiring the relevant prohibited conduct involving electricity-supply materials and, as applicable, dishonest, malicious or culpably negligent conduct.

It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, under which proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, and Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, concerning allegations that are absurd or inherently improbable.

The Court also referred to R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab on the exercise of inherent powers where criminal proceedings are unsustainable.

The Court considered the petitioner’s 2016 written complaint that the pole was already damaged, together with the timing of the 2022 FIR—lodged hours after he raised a grievance against local WBSEDCL officials with the Regional Manager.

It found these circumstances inconsistent with the allegation that the petitioner had damaged the pole in 2022 and indicative of a retaliatory prosecution.

The Court further regarded the earlier writ judgment concerning restoration of the temple’s electricity connection as supporting the petitioner’s bona fides.

It concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

It also discharged him from his bail-bond liabilities, if any, and made no order as to costs.