MUKESH CHAND versus THE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR on 12 March 2019

700

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

A

B

MUKESH CHAND

v

THE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 469-470 of 2019)

MARCH 12, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.135 and 152 – Respondent No.2-BSES alleged that the appellant had committed theft of electricityand sent a bill of Rs.3,54,598.21/- – Appellant failed to pay the billamount – Respondent No.2 filed FIR against the appellant u/s.135of the Act – However, appellant and Respondent No.2 settled thematter in the Special Lok Adalat for a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- –Appellant filed petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR filed againsthim – High Court dismissed the petition – On appeal, held: TheHigh Court did not examine the issue in the light of s.152 of the Act– Thus, case remanded to the High Court for deciding the petitionafresh, keeping in view the provisions of s.152 of the Act.

C

D

EAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Respondent No.1 rightly pointed out that theissue in question needs to be decided in the light of Section 152of the Act, which deals with compounding of offences under theElectricity Act, 2003. [Para 14] [702-F]

F

2. Since the High Court did not examine the issue in thelight of Section 152 of the Act, this Court considers it proper toremand the case to the High Court to examine the issue afreshkeeping in view the provisions of Section 152 of the Act and thenpass appropriate orders as the case may require on the factsGinvolved therein in accordance with law. [Para 15] [702-G-H]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNos. 469-470 of 2019.

H

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.A. No. 49292 of 2018 in Crl. M.C.No. 2757 of 2018 .

V. K. Sharma, Anil Kumar Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.

K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Amit Kumar (forB. V. Balaram Das), Sonal Jain, Rishabh Raj Jain, Ms. Heena Sharma,Adv. for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderdated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi inCrl.M.A. No.49292/2018 in Crl.M.C. No.2757/2018 whereby the HighCourt dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of theseappeals, which involve a short point.

4. The appellant was a consumer of electricity. He, therefore,obtained one electricity connection from respondent No. 2 - BSESRajdhani Power Limited(hereinafter referred to as “BSES”) for hisbusiness premises.

5. Respondent No. 2-BSES sent a bill to the appellant forconsumption of electricity to the tune of Rs. 3,54,598.21 on 22.09.2014.According to BSES, the appellant had committed theft of electricity andon it being detected, the bill in question was sent to the appellant.

6. Since the appellant failed to pay the bill amount, the BSES filedFIR against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003 (hereinafterreferred to as “the Act”) and sought the appellant’s prosecution forcommission of theft of electricity under the Act. It was also followed bynotice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(hereinafterreferred to as “the Crl.P.C.”).

7. The appellant and BSES, however, settled the matter in theSpecial Lok Adalat held on 11.02.2018 for a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/-.An order was accordingly passed by the Lok Adalat on 11.02.2018.According to the appellant, he has deposited the agreed amount in twoinstalments.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

8. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition under Section 482 ofthe Crl.P.C. in the High Court of Delhi seeking therein for quashing ofthe FIR filed by the BSES against him in relation to the aforementioneddispute.

A

9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition, whichBhas given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave in thisCourt by the appellant(consumer).

10. Heard Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG for respondent No.1 and Mr. SonalJain, learned counsel for respondent No.2-BSES.

C

11. Learned counsel for the appellant (consumer) referring tocondition(iii) of the order dated 11.02.2018 of the Lok Adalat (AnnexureP-5) contended that in the light of the settlement arrived at between theparties wherein the BSES has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed bythem against the appellant, the FIR and the criminal case filed by BSESDagainst him has to be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at inthe Lok Adalat.

12. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-BSEScontended that the issue in question has to be decided keeping in viewthe requirements of Section 152 of the Act.

E

E13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and whilesetting aside the impugned order remand the case to the High Court fordeciding the petition afresh keeping in view the provisions of the Section152 of the Act.F14. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG

14. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASGappearing for respondent No.1, the issue in question needs to be decidedin the light of Section 152 of the Act, which deals with compounding ofoffences under the Act.

15. Since we find that the High Court did not examine the issue inGthe light of Section 152 of the Act, we consider it proper to remand thecase to the High Court to examine the issue afresh keeping in view theprovisions of Section 152 of the Act and then pass appropriate orders asthe case may require on the facts involved therein in accordance withlaw.

H

MUKESH CHAND v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals are allowed,the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the HighCourt for deciding the matter afresh as indicated above.

17. We make it clear that having formed an opinion to remand thecase, we have not applied our mind to the merits of the case. The HighCourt will, therefore, decide the matter strictly in accordance with lawuninfluenced by any observations made by us in this order.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H