Supreme Court of India
SALEEM AHMED versus STATE & ANR. on 19 August 2019
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 669
SALEEM AHMED
v.
STATE & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2019)
AUGUST 19, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing ofFIR – Allegation of theft of electricity – Demand raised by therespondent-Electricity Department – Dispute referred to Lok Adalat– Dispute amicably settled between the appellant-consumer and theElectricity Department whereby appellant required to pay certainsum in full and final satisfaction of entire claim – The amount wasduly paid by the appellant – However, subsequently, the respondentlodged FIR against the appellant in relation to the same demand –High Court refused to quash the FIR – On appeal, held: The disputewas amicably settled between the parties and in the order of LokAdalat, no liberty was granted to the Department to file FIR againstappellant – Therefore, filing of FIR was unjust and liable to bequashed – Electricity Act – s. 135 – Compromise/Settlement.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Once the dispute in relation to recovery ofoutstanding amount was finally settled between the parties(appellant and BSES) amicably in Lok Adalat resulting in passingof the award in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim, therewas neither any occasion and nor any basis to file FIR by theBSES against the appellant in respect of the cause which wassubject matter of an award. The remedy of the parties in such acase was only to challenge the award in appropriate forum in casethey felt aggrieved by the award. [Paras 14, 15] [673-E-G]
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922 ; Bhargavi Constructions& Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (2018) 13SCC 480 : [2017] 9 SCR 380 – relied on.
669
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
A2. The effect of passing of an award was that dispute inrelation to the demand raised by the BSES was settled amicablybetween the parties leaving no dispute surviving. The originaldemand was for Rs.97,786/- whereas the dispute was settled atRs.83,120/- in full and final satisfaction of the claim made by theBSES against the appellant. The dispute between the parties,Btherefore, came to an end for all purposes consequentupon passing of an award except to the extent of recovery ofthe awarded amount of Rs.83,120/-. [Paras 16, 17] [673-G-H;674-A-B]
3. The award did not contain any condition granting libertyCto the BSES to file an FIR against the appellant under theElectricity Act notwithstanding settlement of the dispute andpassing of an award in relation to demand in question. On theother hand, the conditions set out in the award, in clear terms,record that the dispute was settled in full and final satisfaction ofDthe demand in question. The filing of FIR after passing of theaward by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and illegal and thesame was not permissible being against the terms of the awardand also for want of any subsisting cause of action arising out ofdemand. It is, therefore, not legally sustainable. [Paras 18, 20][674-C-D; F]EState of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922 ; Bhargavi Constructions& Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (2018) 13SCC 480 : [2017] 9 SCR 380 – relied on.
Case Law ReferenceF
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 4476 of 2018.
Anil Kumar Gautam, V. K. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma,Mohan Prasad Gupta, Ms. Sunita Sharma (for B.V.Balram Das), Advs.for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated05.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C.No.4476 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed bythe appellant herein.
3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from thefacts mentioned hereinbelow.
4. The appellant is the owner of the house bearing No. F-11/75(SF), Khasra No. 2271/4, Malviya Nagar, Khirkee Extn., New Delhi.The appellant let out this house to respondent No. 3 (the name ofrespondent No.3 was deleted from the array of the parties by thisCourt order dated 25.04.2019) on monthly rent.
5. On 15.12.2014, the officials of the Enforcement Departmentof BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.-respondent No. 2 herein inspected theelectricity meter installed in the aforesaid house and found that the meterwas not recording correct reading.
6. On verification, the BSES made assessment in relation to theconsumption of the electricity and accordingly sent a bill for theft for Rs.97,786/- to the appellant and respondent No. 3 because he being inoccupation of the house was found consuming the electricity supplied bythe BSES. The case was accordingly registered against the appellantand respondent No.3 being case No. ID - RJ 151214SC102 (CRN No.25201 72444/SAKET)- PLA No. 1/37/2015.
7. On 27.02.2015, the BSES organized one Permanent Lok Adalat-I in Lower Courts at Delhi under the provisions of Legal ServicesAuthorities Act, 1987 to settle their several recovery cases. Theappellant’s case was also fixed for settlement.
8. By order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P-2), the case wassettled at Rs.83,120/- against full and final payment of the aforesaid bill A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aof Rs.97,786/-. The appellant accordingly paid Rs.83,120/- to the BSESin terms of the order dated 27.02.2015 in three equal installments. Theorder reads as under:
“In this case, the petitioner had approached this Courtfor settlement with regard to DT bill amounting toBRs.97,786/- based on inspection dated 15.12.2004. Aproposal for settlement was given on behalf of the petitioner,which was duly recorded in the Order dated 13.02.2015.
Sh. Rajesh Arora submits that after examining thisproposal, the competent authority has agreed to settle thisbill for a sum of Rs.83,120/-. This offer has now beenaccepted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.Accordingly, it is now agreed between the parties that thepetitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.83,120/- in full and finalsettlement against the impugned bill of Rs.97,786/-. It isfurther agreed between the parties that the petitioner shalldeposit the said amount of Rs.83,120/- in three equalinstallments. The amount of the first installment shall bedeposited by the petitioner on or before 09.03.2015, theamount of second installment on or before 30.03.2015 andthe amount of third installment, on or before 30.04.2015.The said amount will be deposited at Andrews Ganj office.It is further agreed that in case the petitioner defaults inmaking the payment of any of the installments, he shall beliable to make the payment of the full amount of theimpugned bill forthwith.
C
D
E
FIt is further agreed that after deposit of the amount offirst two installments, the request of the petitioner forrelease of a new connection will be processed immediatelythereafter and new connection will be released within oneweek from the date of deposit of the second installment,subject to completion of concerned formalities includingGdeposit of any other outstanding amount against thepremises in question.
With this order, the dispute between the parties standssettled amicably. The said settlement has been recordedwithout any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Parties H
are directed to sign this order of settlement. A copy of thisorder be supplied to the parties for compliance.”
9. Despite settlement of the case and receiving the payment, theBSES filed FIR No.548/15 against the appellant on 21.03.2015 underSection 135 of the Electricity Act in P.S. Malviya Nagar, South Delhi inrelation to the same demand.
10. The appellant felt aggrieved by the registration of FIR againsthim and filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) in the HighCourt challenging its registration as being bad in law.
11. The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed the petition,which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way special leaveby the appellant in this Court.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order, allow the petition filed by the appellant underSection 482 of the Code and quash FIR No.548/15.
14. In our opinion, once the dispute in relation to recovery ofoutstanding amount was finally settled between the parties (appellantand BSES) amicably in Lok Adalat resulting in passing of the awarddated 27.02.2015 in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim, therewas neither any occasion and nor any basis to file FIR by the BSESagainst the appellant in respect of the cause which was subject matterof an award.
15. The remedy of the parties in such a case was only to challengethe award in appropriate forum in case they felt aggrieved by the award.Such was, however, not the case here. (See- State of Punjab & Anr.vs. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660 and BhargaviConstructions & Anr. vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors.,(2018) 13 SCC 480)
16. In our opinion, the effect of passing of an award was thatdispute in relation to the demand raised by the BSES was settled amicablybetween the parties leaving no dispute surviving. The original demandwas for Rs.97,786/- whereas the dispute was settled at Rs.83,120/- in A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Afull and final satisfaction of the claim made by the BSES against theappellant.
17. The dispute between the parties, therefore, came to an endfor all purposes consequent upon passing of an award except to theextent of recovery of the awarded amount of Rs.83,120/-. It is not inBdispute that the appellant paid the awarded amount to the BSES in termsof the award dated 27.02.2015 and the same was also accepted by theBSES without any protest. The award thus stood fully satisfied.
18. We also find that the award did not contain any conditiongranting liberty to the BSES to file an FIR against the appellant underCthe Electricity Act notwithstanding settlement of the dispute and passingof an award in relation to demand in question. On the other hand, theconditions set out in the award, in clear terms, record that the disputehas been settled in full and final satisfaction of the demand in question.It is not in dispute that Section 152 of the Electricity Act empowers theofficer concerned to compound the offences punishable under theDElectricity Act.
19. In our view, if the BSES was so keen to file FIR against theappellant under the Electricity Act then either they should not have settledthe matter through Lok Adalat or while settling should have put a conditionin the award reserving therein their right to file FIR notwithstandingEsettlement of the dispute in question. This was, however, not done.
20. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the filing ofFIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust andillegal and the same was not permissible being against the terms of theaward and also for want of any subsisting cause of action arising out ofFdemand. It is, therefore, not legally sustainable.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. As aconsequence, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code by theappellant is allowed and FIR No. 548/2015 registered in PS MalviyaGNagar, South Delhi against the appellant is hereby quashed.
Devika Gujral
H