Full Judgment Text
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M. C. No. 2918/07 & Crl M. A. No. 10390/07
Date of decision : 30.04.2008
# RAJBIR SINGH ...... Petitioner
! Through : Mr. Mukul Dhawan, Adv.
Versus
$ STATE OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
^Through : Mr. Rahul Dhawan, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. M.P.Singh, APP for the
State.
Inspector Ramesh Chandra, SIT,
Crime Branch.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
J U D G M E N T
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner Rajbir Singh has filed the present
petition for quashing FIR No. 583/2006 which was
registered against the petitioner in police station
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 1 of 7
Najafgarh under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for
having committed direct theft of the electricity.
2. The petitioner alleges that since he has compounded
the offence in Criminal Complaint No. 140/2006 filed
by the respondent and has paid the compounding fee
of Rs. 20,14,100/- against receipt No. 10933100738,
no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
proceedings in the FIR pending the offence being
compoundable. Respondent BSES RPL also filed a
criminal complaint No. 140/2006 against the present
petitioner for the similar offence of theft of electricity
as reported in the inspection report dated 19.6.2006.
Subsequently, an FIR was also registered being FIR
No. 583/2006 against the petitioner and other persons
at police station Najafgarh under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code on 19.6.2006.
3. Consequent to the said theft, a bill for Rs.
1,31,96,129/- was raised by the respondent. The
petitioner filed a petition before the Authorized
Officer cum Deputy Commissioner. His appeal was
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 2 of 7
accepted and petitioner was directed to deposit the
compounding fee in the Government Treasury
calculated on the basis of Section 152 of the
Electricity Act. This order was complied with and
petitioner deposited Rs. 20,14,100/- in the
Government Treasury towards compounding fee for
the offence of theft of electricity. In view of the
compounding of the offence, the learned ASJ, Special
Electricity Court vide his order dated 26.11.2007 was
pleased to dispose of the criminal prosecution in
terms of the compounding of the offence. After the
closing of the criminal prosecution the impugned FIR
containing the allegations of theft of electricity as
against the petitioner cannot be allowed to proceed
further. A person cannot be convicted or sentenced
twice for the same offence. The offfence of theft of
electricity having been compounded the FIR No.
583/2006 so far as it relates to theft of electricity by
the petitioner has to be quashed so as to avoid
unnecessary harassment to the petitioner which is
likely to be caused to him in the investigation of the
FIR.
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 3 of 7
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that in view of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition
(C) No. 9616/2006, Gram Sudhar Samittee, Village
Dindarpur v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. vide
its order dated 2.2.2007 directed the investigation of
FIR No. 583/2006 dated 19.6.2006 along with other
FIRs of different dates to be conducted by Crime
Branch of Delhi Police with the direction that Head of
the Crime Branch would ensure that the cases are
assigned to a senior officer for investigations and
proper challans are filed, if so warranted, before the
competent court expeditiously.
5. A raid was conducted on 19.6.2006 on four factories
including M/s New Shokeen Ice Factory owned by the
petitioner before this Court. Other three factories are
M/s Rajender Ice Factory, M/s Amar Ice Factory and
M/s Vikas Ice Factory. These factories were sealed
and there was disconnection of water and electricity
supply to the factories which were so raided but the
petitioner in the said writ petition had urged that
despite the disconnection of water and electricity
supply, four out of six factories continued to function
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 4 of 7
unauthorisedly as was pointed out by the
Commissioner of Industry in his letter dated
12.5.2006 and therefore, the raid was conducted.
During the raid, these factories were found operating
and functional. Hence, they were resealed during the
raid. FIR No. 583/2006 dated 19.6.2006 i.e. the
impugned FIR is registered on two separate issues.
Firstly, whether the seals put up by the authorities
had been tampered with and the factories were
functional and secondly whether there was electricity
theft for running the factories by their respective
owners. While disposing of the petition, following
directions were issued by the Division Bench of this
Court:
“4. In the circumstances, therefore,
we direct as under:
1) The factories in question shall
continue to remain sealed till such
time a competent court directs
desealing of the same. The owners
of the factories shall forebear from
restarting the manufacturing
process in the said factories
without proper verification from
the authorities competent to do so.
The jurisdiction police shall ensure
that these directions are complied
with scrupulously and in the event
of default by the concerned take
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 5 of 7
proper action against the offenders
in accordance with law.
2) Investigation of FIRs No. 583/2006
dated 19.06.2006, 287/2004 dated
20.05.2005, 522/2005 dated
20.08.2005, 77/2007 dated
31.01.2007 and 924/2006 shall
stand transferred to the Crime
Branch of Delhi Police. The Head
of the Crime Branch shall ensure
that the cases are assigned to a
senior officer for investigations
and proper challans are filed, if so
warranted, before the competent
court expeditiously but not later
than 6 months from the date the
investigating agency takes over the
investigation.”
6. Therefore, keeping in view these directions and also
the fact that quashing of the FIR has been sought as
prayed by the petitioner only in respect of the
electricity theft, FIR No. 583/2006 qua the petitioner
only as regards the theft of electricity punishable
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is hereby
quashed having offence being compounded.
However, this FIR as regards the investigation
regarding the first direction as issued in the order
dated 2.2.2007 and investigation as against the other
co accused persons regarding electricity theft and
allegations of breaking of seal etc. shall continue in
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 6 of 7
accordance with the said order. Petition is
accordingly allowed. The investigation proceedings
against the petitioner under Section 135 of Electricity
Act read with Section 379 IPC are hereby quashed
only qua the present petitioner. Petition stands
disposed of accordingly. Attested copy of the order
be sent to the trial court as well as to the State.
ARUNA SURESH
(JUDGE)
April 30, 2008
jk
Crl. M.C. No. 2918/2007 Page 7 of 7