Delhi High Court
Heena Haider & Anr vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 December, 2014
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5492/2014
HEENA HAIDER & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kr. Tiwary, Mr. Swaminath &
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for State with SI
Raj Pal, PS Jamia Nagar
Ms. Aditi Tomar, Ms. Shubham
Mahajan & Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv.
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 18730/2014
1. This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 580/2013 that has been
registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act at Police Station Jamia Nagar on 02.11.2013 on the ground
that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the
complainant/second respondent herein, namely, BSES.
2. Issue notice.
3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second
respondent/complainant enter appearance and accept notice.
4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of
the complainant alleging direct theft of electricity based on an inspection
carried out by the Enforcement Department of the complainant on
24.10.2013. A copy of the said inspection report, as well as the relevant
criminal complaint that was moved in this regard has also been annexed.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has since paid the
entire dues of the complainant, as reflected in the Assessment Bill for theft
(direct theft) carrying the print date as 29.11.2013 wherein the appropriate
demand in terms of the relevant statute and the applicable rules and
regulations had been raised. In terms thereof, an amount of Rs. 95,429/- was
paid to the complainant on 22.11.2013. A copy of the receipt issued by the
complainant has also been annexed.
6. Counsel for the complainant also states that the aforesaid payment,
nothing further is payable to the complainant/BSES on this account, and that
the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, and that the
proceedings be closed.
7. Looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters
for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be
quashed on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim, if
the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:
"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly
and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of
civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim
and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences have not been made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of its inherent power,
quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated."
I am of the opinion that since the parties have settled the matter on
terms with the payment of all the dues and demand raised by the
complainant in this regard, no useful purpose would be served in continuing
with the proceedings where the complainant is no longer interested in
pursuing the matter.
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 580/2013 that
has been registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the
Indian Electricity Act at Police Station Jamia Nagar, and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9. The petition stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
DECEMBER 02, 2014
rd
