Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.2631/2012
VIJAY BALI .....Petitioner
Through: In person
versus
STATE & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for Respondent-State
Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Rahul
Malhotra, Advocate for respondent
No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
% O R D E R
09.03.2015
1. In this petition, quashing of CC No.1008/2008 titled B.S.E.S.
Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Shri Vijay Bali , FIR No.444/2008 and FIR
No.140/2009 is sought by petitioner alleging that false criminal
prosecution has been launched by respondent No.2-BSES YPL and
police personnel.
2. Petitioner was a registered consumer in respect of K.No.
121113250285 installed in petitioner's premises and on the request of
petitioner, old mechanical electric meter was replaced by new electronic
th
meter by respondent No.2 on 30 March, 2004. In January, 2006, it was
found that aforesaid meter was found stopped at reading of 2069 but the
electric connection to petitioner's premises was alive. According to
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 1
respondent No.2, due to inadvertence, status of petitioner's electric meter
was uploaded on the data of the computer system as disconnected. Upon
nd
verification of meter reading on 2 May, 2008, as per site inspection
report, the electric meter at petitioner's premises showed reading of 2069
but the electric supply was found to be connected.
th
3. On 5 May, 2008, officials of respondent No.2 visited petitioner's
premises for replacement of meter, but petitioner resisted and a Notice
under Section 163 of Electricity Act, 2003 was sent by post to petitioner
because he had neither received it nor had allowed it to be pasted at the
th
premises. Again on 13 May, 2008, officials of respondent No.2
alongwith local police went to petitioner's premises for installing new
electric meter but entry inside petitioner's premises was denied by
petitioner. However, with the help of local police, the faulty meter was
th
removed from petitioner's premises on 15 May, 2008 and in this regard,
site inspection report and MMG Report was prepared regarding
petitioner-consumer resisting installation of new meter. Copy of Meter
Return Report and PD cases and site inspection report have been placed
on record by respondent No.2.
st
4. On 1 July, 2008, a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 with
Delhi Police regarding petitioner not allowing respondent No.2 to
change the meter and copy of said complaint is also annexed with reply
nd
of respondent No.2 to this petition. Again on 2 July, 2008, petitioner's
premises was inspected by officials of respondent No.2 with the
assistance of local police and it was found that electric supply was being
directed taken from LT Box of respondent No.2 and on the basis of
nd
Inspection Report of 2 July, 2008, a theft bill of ` 1,86,497/- was raised
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 2
and a complaint under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 was filed in
the concerned court.
th
5. On 15 December, 2008, petitioner was again found indulging in
direct theft of electricity and theft bill was raised upon him regarding
which FIR is already pending in the concerned court. As per respondent
No.2, on the directions of the concerned court, petitioner's premises was
st
again inspected with the aid of local police on 21 April, 2009 and it was
found that petitioner was indulging in direct theft of electricity through
illegal wires, which were directly connected to the bar. A fresh theft bill
of ` 95,566/- was raised and FIR No.140/2009 was registered.
6. It is the case of respondent No.2 that to avoid payment of
legitimate dues and installation of new electronic meter, petitioner had
instituted several cases against respondent No.2 which are pending at
various stages. The details of the said cases find mention in paragraph
No.15 of the reply filed by respondent No.2 to this petition.
7. Afore-noted stand taken by respondent No.2 is strongly contested
by petitioner, who has chosen to himself argue this petition. The
averments made in this petition were not concise and the case of
petitioner was not concisely put as this petition appears to have been
drafted by petitioner himself. At the hearing, petitioner had sought to
explain this case as stated in this petition and had taken pleas which were
not tangible and so, petitioner was called upon to precisely state his case
by way of short synopsis and even the synopsis is no better. However, to
decide this petition on merits, an earnest endeavour was made by this
Court to go through this petition, the response filed thereto and the
synopsis filed.
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 3
8. At the hearing, petitioner had sought to delve deep into the facts of
this case, but precise stand of learned senior counsel for respondent No.2
was that the disputed question of facts are sought to be raised by
petitioner which cannot be gone into in the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as the stand taken by petitioner needs to be put to
respondent No.2 at trial. It was pointed out that the investigation in the
FIR cases in question is complete and the complaint case also needs to
be tried and so, the stand taken by petitioner deserves to be tested at trial.
9. The material on record as well as status report, and the Single
Bench decision in W. P. (C) No.8859/2009 titled Sh. Vijay Bali v. BSES
th
Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors. rendered on 4 October, 2010 and Division
Bench decision in LPA No. 69/2011 titled BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V.
th
Vijay Bali & Ors. rendered on 25 March, 2014 have been carefully
considered and thereupon this Court finds that although Single Bench of
this Court in W. P. (C) No.8859/2009 (Annexure P-46) , has quashed the
theft bills in question, but a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal had
found that the said Appeal raised disputed questions of facts and it was
left open to be independently gone into by the Special Court in
complaint case, subject to the orders of this Court in the present
proceedings.
10. No doubt, BSES's Regulation 40 (C) expressly provides that
pending replacement of meter, a case of direct theft should not be
booked. However, the benefit of the said Regulation cannot be extended
to petitioner at this stage because the categoric stand of respondent No.2-
BSES is that petitioner had resisted installation of new electronic meter,
which is not categorically disputed by petitioner. This certainly raises a
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 4
disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. It needs no reiteration that the inherent powers under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. have to be sparingly exercised and with circumspection. This
Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations and counter
allegations levelled by the parties against each other. On this aspect, the
pertinent observations of Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar
Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 are as under: -
“It is true that the inherent powers vested in the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide.
Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer arbitrary
jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or
caprice. This extraordinary power has to be exercised
sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible, for
extraordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint or
the first information report, taken on its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged. It needs little emphasis that unless a case of gross
abuse of power is made out against those in charge of
investigation, the High Court should be loath to interfere at
the early/premature stage of investigation.”
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, on the disputed question of
facts raised in this petition, the proceedings arising out the complaint
case and the FIRs in question cannot be prematurely quashed as upon
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 5
plain reading of the aforesaid complaint and FIR cases, it cannot
outrightly be said that the ingredients of the offences alleged do not
apparently exist. Nor it can be said that instant case is of gross abuse of
process of the court. While refraining to go into the disputed of question
of facts raised in this petition, it is disposed of while not commenting
upon merits lest it may prejudice either side before the trial court. Since
petitioner is claiming that he has been victimized by respondents,
therefore, let the pending proceedings in these cases be expeditiously
taken to its logical end.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 09, 2015
s
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 6
+ CRL.M.C.2631/2012
VIJAY BALI .....Petitioner
Through: In person
versus
STATE & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for Respondent-State
Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Rahul
Malhotra, Advocate for respondent
No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
% O R D E R
09.03.2015
1. In this petition, quashing of CC No.1008/2008 titled B.S.E.S.
Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Shri Vijay Bali , FIR No.444/2008 and FIR
No.140/2009 is sought by petitioner alleging that false criminal
prosecution has been launched by respondent No.2-BSES YPL and
police personnel.
2. Petitioner was a registered consumer in respect of K.No.
121113250285 installed in petitioner's premises and on the request of
petitioner, old mechanical electric meter was replaced by new electronic
th
meter by respondent No.2 on 30 March, 2004. In January, 2006, it was
found that aforesaid meter was found stopped at reading of 2069 but the
electric connection to petitioner's premises was alive. According to
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 1
respondent No.2, due to inadvertence, status of petitioner's electric meter
was uploaded on the data of the computer system as disconnected. Upon
nd
verification of meter reading on 2 May, 2008, as per site inspection
report, the electric meter at petitioner's premises showed reading of 2069
but the electric supply was found to be connected.
th
3. On 5 May, 2008, officials of respondent No.2 visited petitioner's
premises for replacement of meter, but petitioner resisted and a Notice
under Section 163 of Electricity Act, 2003 was sent by post to petitioner
because he had neither received it nor had allowed it to be pasted at the
th
premises. Again on 13 May, 2008, officials of respondent No.2
alongwith local police went to petitioner's premises for installing new
electric meter but entry inside petitioner's premises was denied by
petitioner. However, with the help of local police, the faulty meter was
th
removed from petitioner's premises on 15 May, 2008 and in this regard,
site inspection report and MMG Report was prepared regarding
petitioner-consumer resisting installation of new meter. Copy of Meter
Return Report and PD cases and site inspection report have been placed
on record by respondent No.2.
st
4. On 1 July, 2008, a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 with
Delhi Police regarding petitioner not allowing respondent No.2 to
change the meter and copy of said complaint is also annexed with reply
nd
of respondent No.2 to this petition. Again on 2 July, 2008, petitioner's
premises was inspected by officials of respondent No.2 with the
assistance of local police and it was found that electric supply was being
directed taken from LT Box of respondent No.2 and on the basis of
nd
Inspection Report of 2 July, 2008, a theft bill of ` 1,86,497/- was raised
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 2
and a complaint under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 was filed in
the concerned court.
th
5. On 15 December, 2008, petitioner was again found indulging in
direct theft of electricity and theft bill was raised upon him regarding
which FIR is already pending in the concerned court. As per respondent
No.2, on the directions of the concerned court, petitioner's premises was
st
again inspected with the aid of local police on 21 April, 2009 and it was
found that petitioner was indulging in direct theft of electricity through
illegal wires, which were directly connected to the bar. A fresh theft bill
of ` 95,566/- was raised and FIR No.140/2009 was registered.
6. It is the case of respondent No.2 that to avoid payment of
legitimate dues and installation of new electronic meter, petitioner had
instituted several cases against respondent No.2 which are pending at
various stages. The details of the said cases find mention in paragraph
No.15 of the reply filed by respondent No.2 to this petition.
7. Afore-noted stand taken by respondent No.2 is strongly contested
by petitioner, who has chosen to himself argue this petition. The
averments made in this petition were not concise and the case of
petitioner was not concisely put as this petition appears to have been
drafted by petitioner himself. At the hearing, petitioner had sought to
explain this case as stated in this petition and had taken pleas which were
not tangible and so, petitioner was called upon to precisely state his case
by way of short synopsis and even the synopsis is no better. However, to
decide this petition on merits, an earnest endeavour was made by this
Court to go through this petition, the response filed thereto and the
synopsis filed.
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 3
8. At the hearing, petitioner had sought to delve deep into the facts of
this case, but precise stand of learned senior counsel for respondent No.2
was that the disputed question of facts are sought to be raised by
petitioner which cannot be gone into in the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as the stand taken by petitioner needs to be put to
respondent No.2 at trial. It was pointed out that the investigation in the
FIR cases in question is complete and the complaint case also needs to
be tried and so, the stand taken by petitioner deserves to be tested at trial.
9. The material on record as well as status report, and the Single
Bench decision in W. P. (C) No.8859/2009 titled Sh. Vijay Bali v. BSES
th
Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors. rendered on 4 October, 2010 and Division
Bench decision in LPA No. 69/2011 titled BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. V.
th
Vijay Bali & Ors. rendered on 25 March, 2014 have been carefully
considered and thereupon this Court finds that although Single Bench of
this Court in W. P. (C) No.8859/2009 (Annexure P-46) , has quashed the
theft bills in question, but a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal had
found that the said Appeal raised disputed questions of facts and it was
left open to be independently gone into by the Special Court in
complaint case, subject to the orders of this Court in the present
proceedings.
10. No doubt, BSES's Regulation 40 (C) expressly provides that
pending replacement of meter, a case of direct theft should not be
booked. However, the benefit of the said Regulation cannot be extended
to petitioner at this stage because the categoric stand of respondent No.2-
BSES is that petitioner had resisted installation of new electronic meter,
which is not categorically disputed by petitioner. This certainly raises a
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 4
disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. It needs no reiteration that the inherent powers under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. have to be sparingly exercised and with circumspection. This
Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations and counter
allegations levelled by the parties against each other. On this aspect, the
pertinent observations of Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar
Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 are as under: -
“It is true that the inherent powers vested in the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide.
Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer arbitrary
jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or
caprice. This extraordinary power has to be exercised
sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible, for
extraordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint or
the first information report, taken on its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged. It needs little emphasis that unless a case of gross
abuse of power is made out against those in charge of
investigation, the High Court should be loath to interfere at
the early/premature stage of investigation.”
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, on the disputed question of
facts raised in this petition, the proceedings arising out the complaint
case and the FIRs in question cannot be prematurely quashed as upon
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 5
plain reading of the aforesaid complaint and FIR cases, it cannot
outrightly be said that the ingredients of the offences alleged do not
apparently exist. Nor it can be said that instant case is of gross abuse of
process of the court. While refraining to go into the disputed of question
of facts raised in this petition, it is disposed of while not commenting
upon merits lest it may prejudice either side before the trial court. Since
petitioner is claiming that he has been victimized by respondents,
therefore, let the pending proceedings in these cases be expeditiously
taken to its logical end.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 09, 2015
s
Crl.M.C.2631/2012 Page 6