Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.469470 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.227228 of 2019)
Mukesh Chand ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State(NCT) of Delhi
& Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order dated 10.12.2018 passed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.03.12
16:36:11 IST
Reason:
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.A.
1
No.49292/2018 in Crl.M.C. No.2757/2018 whereby
the High Court dismissed the application filed by
the appellant herein.
3. A f ew facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of these appeals, which involve a short
point.
4. The appellant was a consumer of electricity.
He, therefore, obtained one electricity connection
from respondent No. 2 BSES Rajdhani Power
Limited(hereinafter referred to as “BSES”) for his
business premises.
5. Respondent No. 2BSES sent a bill to the
appellant for consumption 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 and on it being detected, the bill in
question was sent to the appellant.
2
6. Since the appellant failed to pay the bill
amount, the BSES filed FIR against him under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) and sought the appellant’s
prosecution for commission of theft of electricity
under the Act. It was also followed by notice under
Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973(hereinafter referred to as “the Crl.P.C.”).
7. The appellant and BSES, however, settled the
matter in the Special 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 two instalments.
8. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition under
Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. in the High Court of
Delhi seeking therein for quashing of the FIR filed
3
by the BSES against him in relation to the
aforementioned dispute.
9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed
the petition, which has given rise to filing of these
appeals by way of special leave in this Court by the
appellant(consumer).
10. Heard Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Sonal Jain, learned
counsel for respondent No.2BSES.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant (consumer)
referring to condition(iii) of the order dated
11.02.2018 of the Lok Adalat (Annexure P5)
contended that in the light of the settlement arrived
at between the parties wherein the BSES has agreed
to withdraw all the cases filed by them against the
appellant, the FIR and the criminal case filed by
4
BSES against him has to be disposed of in terms of
the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat.
12. In reply, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2BSES contended that the issue in
question has to be decided keeping in view the
requirements of Section 152 of the Act.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting
aside the impugned order remand the case to the
High Court for deciding the petition afresh keeping
in view the provisions of the Section 152 of the Act.
14. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K.M. Nataraj,
learned ASG appearing for respondent No.1, the
issue in question needs to be decided in the light of
Section 152 of the Act, which deals with
compounding of offences under the Act.
5
15. Since we find that the High Court did not
examine the issue in the light of Section 152 of the
Act, we consider it proper to remand the case to the
High Court to examine the issue afresh keeping in
view the provisions of Section 152 of the Act and
then pass appropriate orders as the case may
require on the facts involved therein in accordance
with law.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the
case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the
matter afresh as indicated above.
17. We make it clear that having formed an
opinion to remand the case, we have not applied our
mind to the merits of the case. The High Court will,
therefore, decide the matter strictly in accordance
6
with law uninfluenced by any observations made by
us in this order.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 12, 2019.
7