Delhi High Court
Rajendra Kumar vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 9 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4095/2011
% Judgment delivered on:9th December, 2011
RAJENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv.
versus
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Anjali Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 19089/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 4095/2011
1 Notice issued.
2 Ms.Anjali Sharma, learned counsel for respondent accepts notice on
behalf of BSES.
3 With the consent of parties, the matter is being taken up for final
disposal.
4 Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of
proceedings of complaint case No.574/2008 pending before the court of
Special Judge, Electricity, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
5 Learned counsel further submits that initially, the respondent raised a
bill for the sum of Rs.79,250/- LPSC and the amount due was Rs.
9,43,626/-
6 Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, this bill was settled
for Rs.79,250/- and accordingly settlement has been arrived at between the
parties. Accordingly, the said bill was paid by the petitioner.
7 Thereafter, respondent issued a notice dated 26.06.2008 to the
petitioner which reads as under:-
"This is with reference to the above Enforcement Bill
NO. AGENR020120080039 for Rs.9,18,450/- with due dated
17.01.2008. Please note that a amount of Rs.839,200/- is
pending against the said bill and the NOC was issued in this
case erroneously due to oversight. You are advised to meet the
Head Commercial (Enforcement) immediately for payment of
the balance amount but not later than 08.07.2008 failing which
the company shall be constrained to disconnect the supply to
your premises and taken legal action for recovery of the
amount by filing a criminal complaint in the Special Court of
Electricity."
8 Thereafter, the respondent issued notice for dis-connection.
9 The petitioner challenges the same by filing suit before the Civil court
and against the dis-connection. Initially, the interim injunction was granted
and thereafter permanent injunction was granted.
10 The issues whether the bill raised wrongly and whether the bill was
settled between the parties is pending before the Civil Court, therefore,
learned counsel submits that complaint was filed after 09 months after the
civil suit being filed against the petitioner wherein summons have been
issued and finally, the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed
11 Learned counsel further submits that since the Civil court has ceased
with the matter on the issues which are pending, therefore, the complaint at
this stage be rejected and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge may be
quashed.
12 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits under
Section 145 Electricity Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain
any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer
referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127
or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or
under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court
or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance
of any power conferred by or under this Act.
13 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits, the permanent
injunction has been granted by the civil Court has not been challenged by the
respondent.
14 Learned counsel for respondent submits that let the Special Judge,
Electricity Court may proceed in the matter as per law, and the court may
determine the civil liability and punish accordingly.
15 Undisputedly, the Civil suit has been filed wherein, permanent
injunction has been granted much prior to the criminal complaint filed by the
respondent.
16 Though the settled law is that criminal proceedings and civil
proceedings may go on together. Therefore, in the instant case, the issue is
on disputed facts, therefore, I deem it appropriate that let Criminal Court
proceed further as per provisions laid down in law.
17 However, I direct that the trial court that the final decision shall be
passed after considering the effect of the verdict of the civil court.
18 In view of above discussion, no further order is required.
19 Criminal M.C. 4095/2011 is allowed, as per the terms mentioned
above.
CRL. M.A. 19088/2011
In view of the above order, this application is being disposed of as
infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 09, 2011
j
