Delhi High Court
Sanjay Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 29 October, 2014
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4832/2014
SANJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.T. Malik, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Sub Inspector Sahdev, Tomar.
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.16603/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed off.
Crl.M.C. No.4832/2014
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No.165/2012 registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the
Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station Jaitpur on 18.05.2012,
on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr.
Raghav Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power
Ltd., enter appearance and accept notice.
3. It is stated that after the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged, the
petitioner has since deposited the entire amount as raised by the second
respondent in terms of the relevant Assessment Bill for theft (direct theft),
and that there are now no dues claimed by the second respondent in terms of
the relevant Act and Rules.
4. Counsel for the second respondent affirms this position and states that
the matter has been amicably settled; and that the second respondent does
not wish to continue with the proceedings any further, and the same be
brought to an end.
5. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the overall
circumstances, and also the fact that the complainant / BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd. is not interested in pursuing the matter any further, 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 considered opinion that this matter deserves to be a
quietus where the parties have amicably settled the matter, and the
complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby
reducing the chances of its success.
7. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR
No.165/2012 registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the
Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station Jaitpur on 18.05.2012,
and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
8. The petition is disposed off.
9. Dasti.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2014
dr
