Ramesh Chand Verma vs State & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5183 Del

$~4
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.M.C. 3901/2014

        RAMESH CHAND VERMA                                  ..... Petitioner
           Through  Mr. Manoj K. Jha, Advocate

                           versus

        STATE & ANR.                               ..... Respondent
            Through  Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                     Ms. Aditi Tomar and Ms. Shubham Mahajan,
                     Advocates for R2/BSES.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%       SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.13351/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.3901/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.43/2014 registered under Sections 135, 150 of the Electricity Act at police station Palam village, on the ground that the matter has been settled after the payment of the assessment bill (direct theft) raised by the second respondent No.2 / BSES in terms of the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, and in relation to which, the aforesaid complaint under Section 135/150, Electricity Act was instituted against the petitioner.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ms. Aditi Tomar, Advocate for the second respondent / BSES, enter appearance

and accept notice.

4. Counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, states that the aforesaid assessment bill stands fully paid, and that the second respondent has no objection to the FIR being quashed since it is no longer interested in pursuing the matter. A copy of the receipt issued by the BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. against the payment made has also been annexed to this petition.

5. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the circumstances, and since the matter appears to have been settled; and the complainant / second respondent is longer interested in pursuing the matter, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

6. Consequently, and 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 ground of a settlement agreement 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 this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have settled the matter, and the second respondent is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution any further, thereby reducing the chances of its success.

7. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and FIR No.43/2014 registered under Sections 135, 150 of the Electricity Act at police station Palam village, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

8. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge OCTOBER 15, 2014 dr