V.B.R. MENON Vs. P. NARESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 11.03.2016 made in C.M.P.No.5250 of 2015, dismissing the petitioner's private complaint as not maintainable, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) On 26.05.2015, around 5.00 p.m., the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the Assistant Executive Engineers of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,(TANGEDCO) inspected the above premises and found that the tenant in the ground floor was using part of the industrial service connection for lighting purpose. Thereafter, they have demanded compounding fee and penalty under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, alleging the theft of energy. At that time, the petitioner was away in U.S.A, for summer vacation. Thereafter, the respondents preferred a Mahazar report in absence of the owner or occupier or their authorized representatives, and obtained a signature from one Kannan in the Mahazar prepared by them. The said Kannan is neither a resident of the locality or an employee or representative of the petitioner or the owner or occupier of the premises. But in the Mahazar report, the respondents had stated that the said Kannan was the building incharge, hence, the respondents had committed an offence of criminal conspiracy, fabrication of false evidence to injure the complainant, which is punishable under Sections 120-B part II, 193 part I and II, 195A part I, 199, 200, 211 part -I, and 506 para-1 of IPC.