D THILLAIRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the fact that some of the petitioners are the common in all the three cases and the facts involved in all the cases are more or less identical coupled with the further fact that common arguments have been made by both sides, all the cases have been taken up together and a common order is passed.

(2.) The respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 8554 of 2009 is the complainant in C.C. No. 1 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Sessions Court, Madurai for the alleged offence under Sections 135 and 135(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sections 379, 484, 487 and 488 IPC. The allegation in the said complaint which is in the nature of a private complaint is to be effect that the petitioners have committed an offence by alleging the theft of electricity by tampering with the meter to the tune of Rs. 5,59,28,416/- . Challenging the above said complaint, the petitioners have filed the above Crl. O.P. No. 8554 of 2009.

(3.) The respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 2591 of 2010 has registered a complaint in Crime No. 10 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(c) and 135(1)(d) and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, stating that the petitioners therein have committed the alleged offence by tampering with the meter causing a loss to the tune of Rs. 7,55,37,423/-. Challenging the above said registration of the case by the respondent police Crl. O.P. No. 2591 of 2010 has been filed. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 2591 of 2010 are brothers and the 2nd respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 8554 of 2009 is the sister-in-law of the 1st petitioner and the 3rd petitioner therein is the Managing Director of M/s. Vaibhav Corporation.