Ankit Yadav vs State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 4739 Del

$~29
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.M.C. 4376/2014

        ANKIT YADAV                               ..... Petitioner
            Through Mr. Sidharth Yadav and Mr. N. P. Singh,
                    Advocates.

                           versus

        STATE & ANR                                       ..... Respondents
            Through        Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                           Ms. Pallavi Deepak and Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain,
                           Advocates for respondent No.2/BSES.
                           Sub Inspector Paramjeet Singh.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A. No.15011/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.4376/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.15010/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.66/2013 registered under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003, dated 04.04.2013 police station Kapashera; on the ground that the entire outstanding bill of the respondent / BSES stands paid, and the respondent is no longer interested in prosecuting the matter.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. Amit Ahalwat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ms. Pallavi Deepak, Advocate for the second respondent / BSES, enter appearance and accept notice. The Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector

Paramjeet Singh, is also present.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was granted bail by the court below on 01.05.2013 in M.No.23/13. On that date, it was noted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.32,659/- against a receipt dated 22.04.2013 issued by the second respondent / complainant. It is stated that the said payment has been made in respect of Bill No.AGENR111220120020A0 with respect to case I.D. No.RJ061212SE073. The receipt further acknowledges that no dues remain. A copy of the said bill has also been annexed to the petition.

4. Counsel for the complainant approbates this fact and states that the full amount against the aforesaid assessment bill, which has been raised for direct theft, stands duly paid; and that the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter.

5. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since this is a matter pertaining to electricity theft, which has been appropriately settled, and the complainant is no 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 considered opinion that the assessment bill on the basis of theft, that has been raised by the complainant, has been duly paid and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing chances of its success; it is best that the matter is given a quietus at this stage itself.

7. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.66/2013 registered under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003, dated 04.04.2013 police station Kapashera, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

8. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No.15010/2014, is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 dr