Delhi High Court
P.N. Kohli And Anr. vs State And Anr. on 27 November, 2000
Author: D Bhandari
Bench: D Bhandari
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing FIR No. 248/98 dated 20.4.1998; FIR No. 540/99 dated 8.7.1999; FIR No.
541/99 dated 8.7.1999 all registered under Sections 379, IPC and 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under.
2. On 12.4.1998 the Vigilance Staff of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) raided the premises of petitioner No. 1 and reported to the police about the theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1 from the DVB LV main. The Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No. 248/98 dated 12.4.1998 under Sections 379, IPC and 39/44 I.E. Act at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by petitioner No. 2.
3. On 30.6.1999 a joint team raided the premises of petitioner No. 2 (No. 15/5, E-Block, Near Madrasi Colony Temple, New Delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity by petitioner No. 2 form the DVB LV main. The Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No. 540/99 dated 30.6.1999 under Sections 379, IPC and 39/441.E.Act at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner No. 2.
4. On 30.6.1999 a joint team of enforcement MTD/Vigilance/Zone Staff/SDM raided the premises of petitioner No. 1 (Micro Stamping, near Madrasi Colony, Khyala, New Delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1 from the DVB LV main. The Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No. 541/99 dated 30.6.1999 under Sections 379, IPC and 39/44 I.E. Act at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1.
5. It is not disputed that the parties have amicably settled the matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have now deposited the entire amount, therefore, the FIRs filed against them be quashed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on the number of judgments of Divisions Bench of this Court.
7. In Crl. W.P. No. 346/2000 titled as Shiv Bhasin and Ors. v. The State and Anr., decided on 24.5.2000, the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S.N. Kapoor, J. the Court quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Ms.Swarn Kanta Mehra, M.M., Delhi as full amount has been paid.
8. In Crl. W.P. No. 1189/99 titled as Mahender Kumar and Anr. v. State and Anr., a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Anil Dev Singh, J. and RS. Sodhi, J. quashed the FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom as the payment has already been made.
9. in Crl.W.P.No. 56/2000 titled as Harish Purl and Ors. v. State and Anr., decided on 21.3.2000, Division Bench of this Court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S.N. Kapoor, J. quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings.
10. In these writ petitions a Reference has been made to the Office Order dated 16th May, 1996 issued by Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (now Delhi Vidyut Board). The same is reproduced as under:
"The Special Officer, exercising the powers of DESU/MCD, vide Decision No. 5284/GW/Corporation dated 1st May, 1996 have accorded approval for amendment in the existing tariff so as to limit the period of assessment to four months as against six months in cases of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc., for pilferage of energy and /or direct theft in cases where FIR has not been lodged (for whatever reasons) and the consumer is willing to pay the assessment bill at the rate and manner provided in the tariff. However, in case the consumer does not come forward and is also not willing to pay the assessed bill immediately, FIR will be lodged beside other actions, including filing of recovery suit of assessment bill for a period of six months as per existing provisions of the tariff.
This issues with the approval of the General Manager."
11. The Court observed that bare reading of the afore-mentioned office order would suggest that in case consumer who is found to have tampered wit the seals of the meter or involved in direct theft of electricity, beside other action would also be liable for the criminal action. It is subject to one exception that in case the consumer is willing to pay the assessed bill at the rate and in the manner provided in the tariff and would come forward immediately or being assessed, no FIR would be lodged beside other actions.
12. Similar view was also taken in Crl.W.P. No. 69/2000 titled as Jai Bhagwan v. State and Anr., decided on 18.2.2000.
13. Learned Counsel for the DVB states that as the entire outstanding bill of electricity has been paid, therefore, the DVB has no objection if the FIRs are quashed. Learned Counsel for the Stale also has no objection if the FIRs are quashed in view of the fact that the entire outstanding amount of DVB has been paid.
14. I have carefully perused the office memorandum and the number of orders passed by Division Bench of this Court.
15. In view of the number of orders of the Division Bench of this Court, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice, to quash FIR No. 248/98 dated 20.4.1998; FIR No. 540/99 dated 8.7.1999; FIR No. 541/99 dated 8.7.1999 all under Sections 379, IPC and 39/44, I.E. Act registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
