Tenant stealing electricity : Landlord not Liable not even vicariously
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Landlord in Electricity Theft Case. Court rules landlord not vicariously liable for tenant's actions under Electricity Act, 2003.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench quashed an FIR against landlord Navin Prakashsingh Thakur, accused of being complicit in electricity theft by his tenant. The judgment, delivered on October 9, 2025, by Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande, held that the landlord could not be held vicariously liable for the tenant's alleged misconduct under the Electricity Act, 2003.
The case originated from an FIR filed at Akot Police Station, Akola, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which involves theft of electricity. The complaint, lodged by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited's (MSEDCL) Flying Squad, accused Thakur, along with his tenant Syed Ejaj Syed Faiyyaj and another individual, Rupali Wagh, of tampering with an electric meter to prevent it from recording consumption, resulting in substantial financial losses.
Thakur's defense, represented by Advocate J.B. Gandhi, argued that the tenant was solely responsible for the tampering, as per the lease agreement which explicitly prohibited unauthorized electricity use. This agreement, effective from February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, was breached by the tenant, leading Thakur to terminate the lease and seek possession of the property through legal channels.
The court agreed with the defense, emphasizing that under the Electricity Act, a landlord cannot be automatically held accountable for a tenant's illegal actions unless specific provisions state otherwise. The judgment referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, which provides guidelines for quashing FIRs when no prima facie case is evident against the accused.
The ruling noted the absence of direct evidence linking Thakur to the alleged theft, aside from his ownership of the premises. Consequently, the court deemed the continuation of legal proceedings against him an abuse of process, thereby quashing the FIR.
The decision underscores the judicial system's recognition of individual accountability, distinguishing between ownership and direct involvement in criminal activities. It also highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding individuals from unwarranted legal action, reaffirming that ownership does not inherently imply complicity.
Bottom Line:
FIR quashed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the applicant landlord, as the tenant was solely responsible for the alleged theft of electricity. The applicant could not be held vicariously liable in absence of specific provisions in the Electricity Act.
Statutory provision(s): Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135, Section 2(15); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482.
