Ajeet Kumar vs The State (Gnct Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 159 Del

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

                                  Judgment delivered on: 08th January, 2016

+                            CRL.M.C.No.63/2016
      AJEET KUMAR
                                                             ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by:   Mr.Sumit Arora, Adv with
                                               petitioner.
                    versus
      THE STATE (GNCT DELHI) & ANR
                                                             ..... Respondents
                             Represented by:   Mr.Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP
                                               for the State with SI Uma
                                               Datt, PS Mangolpuri, Delhi.
                                               Mr.Ankit Agarwal, Adv for
                                               R2/Tata Power Delhi
                                               Distribution Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. No.265/2016 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C.No.63/2016

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr P C petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No.2559/2014 registered at police station Mangol Puri, Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act,2003 and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that

the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2, i.e., Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd on account of direct theft of electricity committed by him and using the electricity illegally by drawing the same dishonestly. Thereafter, the matter has been settled between the parties through Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, New Delhi vide settlement dated 28.07.2015.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that settled amount has already been paid to respondent No.2 in view of settlement before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, New Delhi. Thus, respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case further against him.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 does not dispute whatever stated by learned counsel for petitioner and has affirmed that matter has been settled and petitioner has paid the total amount and nothing due against him. Thus, respondent No.2 has no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner and if the present petition is allowed, the said respondent has no objection.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that matter is pending for initial investigation and since the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner has paid all the dues raised by the respondent No.2, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

5. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2, FIR No.2559/2014 registered at police station Mangolpuri, Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and consequential proceedings

emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) JANUARY 08, 2016 M