Delhi High Court
Shri Sudhir Gadh S/O Shri Om ... vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 13 September, 2007
Author: V Gupta
Bench: V Gupta
JUDGMENT
V.B. Gupta, J.
1. Petitioner has filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the order dated 12th February, 2007 passed by Sh. Rakesh Tiwari, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi.
2. Along with this petition, Crl.Misc.A. No. 2619/2007 for stay of proceedings of order dated 12th February, 2007 was filed on which following order was passed by this Court on 6th March, 2007:
As the Court has only initiated civil proceedings and asked the petitioner to file written statement, so nothing adverse is going to happen against the petitioner by filing written statement.
3. Thereafter another Crl.Misc.A.No.9022/2007 for stay was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10th August, 2007.
4. Now again the petitioner has filed present Crl.Misc.A.No.9895/2007 against the order dated 13th August, 2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge and has sought stay of proceedings pending before the trial court.
5. Reply to the main petition has been filed by the respondent.
6. Both the counsel has advanced arguments on the stay application.
7. In short, contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner are that the special court under the Electricity Act, 2003 has no jurisdiction to try civil dispute unless it falls under the category defined under Section 154(5) read with Explanation to the Section of this Act. It is very clear that for any other civil dispute, i.e., civil disputes not arising due to the commission of an offence referred to in Sections 135 to 139 and cases not barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, the appropriate forum is civil court and not the special court under the Electricity Act, 2003 . It is contended that in the present case neither there is a commission of offence nor there is a theft as referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and if any such liability which could have survived, the civil court and not the special court under the Electricity Act, 2003, have the jurisdiction.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions cited a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Chairman and Managing Director, APCPDCL and Ors. v. P.C. Dhoot and Sons .
9. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that it is settled law that where an offence which entails both civil and criminal liability, even if the accused is acquitted/ discharged of the criminal liability, it does not waive the civil liability.
10. The relevant portion of impugned orders dated 12th February, 2007 and 13th August, 2007 read as under:
12.02.07
The accused along with the counsel who has produced an order of the DC compounding the offence Under Section 152 of the Electricity Act 2003 and he has also produced the treasury challan depositing Rs. 44,000/- towards compounding fee.
In view of the compounding of the offence, the present proceeding for the criminal liability is discontinued under sub Clause (2) of Section 152 of the Electricity Act 2003 and the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence under sub Clause (3) of the Section 152 of the said Act.
The hitherto accused shall now be called a respondent and the bail bond on the record shall be taken to be an effective service upon him and the respondent may file a general written statement with regard to his civil liability in view of the order of the DC placed on the record. The Deemed APP is directed to come prepare with the tariff rate applicable on the relevant date as provided under sub Clause (5) of Section 154 of the said Act.
13.8.07
Now, to come up for determination of civil liability/framing of issue, if any, and the arguments on the maintainability of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the respondent which is pending on 05.09.07.
11. For the disposal of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for stay of the impugned order, it is not necessary for this Court, at this stage, to express any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions.
12. The Apex Court in Kamla Devi v. State of West Bengal and Ors. had the occasion to consider the question as to whether criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because of pendency of the civil proceedings between the same parties, it was held:
The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. There is no substance in the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings. The nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceedings the matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". The revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction.
13. Similarly, in the present case since the offence under the Electricity Act, 2003 entails both civil and criminal liability, there is no bar to the proceedings pending before the trial court and prima facie, I do not find any illegality in the orders dated 12th February, 2007 and 13th August, 2007 passed by the trial court and as such no ground is made out for stay. Hence the application for stay is dismissed.
Crl.M.C.No.762 of 2007
List the matter on 29th November, 2007, the date already fixed.
