Delhi High Court
Desh Raj vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 4 December, 2014
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4614/2014
DESH RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Raghav, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with
ASI Baljit Singh, PS Palam Village.
Ms. Pallavi Deepika, Advocate for
BSES/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No. 12/2013 registered under Sections 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act (Amend.) 2003 at Police Station Palam Village on 9th
January, 2013 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Pallavi
Deepika, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the
State/respondent No.1 and BSES/respondent No.2, respectively.
3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged alleging direct
theft of electricity pursuant to an inspection dated 19 th August, 2011 and raid
conducted by respondent No.2. on 20th September, 2012. Thereafter, an
assessment bill for direct theft in terms of the relevant rules and regulations
applicable was raised for Rs.106,421.38/-and the instant FIR was lodged.
The entire amount raised by BSES is stated to have been paid by the
petitioner. The assessment bill for direct theft showing the due date as 9 th
October, 2012 pursuant to an inspection carried on, on 20th September, 2012
indicating that there are no dues payable by the petitioner has also been
annexed to this petition.
4. Counsel for respondent No.2 states on instructions that all the
outstanding dues of the complainant have been paid and that the
complainant is no longer interested in continuing with the proceedings and
prays that the same be closed.
5. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that
looking to the overall circumstances; and since the entire outstanding
amount has been paid to respondent No.2/complainant who is no longer
interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with the proceedings.
6. 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 considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a
quietus at this stage itself since the parties concerned have amicably settled
their dispute, and the complainant is not interested in proceeding with the
matter since all the dues/payments have been received.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 12/2013 registered
under Sections 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend.) 2003 at Police
Station Palam Village on 9th January, 2013, and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The petition is disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2014
AK
