Delhi High Court
Kashmir Singh & Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 18 February, 2016
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 18th February, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. No.310/2016
KASHMIR SINGH & ORS
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Pawan Sharma &
Mr.Ravinder Singh, Advs
with petitioners.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Satya Narain
Vashisht, APP for the
State with SI Rakesh, PS
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
for R1.
Ms.Jaspreet Aulak,
Mr.Deepak Jain, &
Ms.Aditi Tomar, Advs for
R2/BSES.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.573/2007
registered at police station Sarita Vihar, New Delhi for the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioners on the
complaint of respondent No.2, i.e., BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. on
account of direct theft of electricity committed by them for the
offences punishable under Sections 353/186/342/334/506/34 of the IPC
and Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. After the investigation,
initially police has filed two charge sheets and thereafter, pursuant to
the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the case was
bifurcated and one charge sheet was sent to the Court of learned
Special Judge, Electricity Act for the offence punishable under Section
135 of the Electricity Act.
3. In the present case, petitioners seek only quashing of the charge
sheet filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act on the ground that
the matter has been settled between the parties and petitioners have
made payment of entire settled amount to respondent No.2. Thus,
respondent no.2 does not want to pursue the case further against them.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2016, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that she has the
instructions from her client that petitioners have paid the amount as per
settlement and nothing due against him. She further submits that a 'No
Due Certificate' to this effect has been issued to the petitioners. Thus,
respondent No.2 has no complaint whatsoever against the petitioners
and, if the present petition is allowed, the said respondent has no
objection.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet
for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and
after framing of charges, matter is pending trial in the learned Trial
Court. Since, the matter has been settled between the parties and the
petitioners have paid all the dues raised by the respondent No.2 and a
'No Dues Certificate' to this effect has been issued to the petitioners,
the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
6. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties,
statement of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned APP for
the State, FIR No.573/2007 registered at PS-Sarita Vihar for the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act only
& consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed
against the petitioners.
7. Needless to state that this order shall not have any bearing on the
pending charge-sheet for the offences punishable under various
Sections of the IPC under the same FIR.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with no order as to cost.
9. Order dasti.
Crl.M.A.No.1378/2016 (Stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 18, 2016
M
