MUKESH CHAND versus THE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 12-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
   MUKESH CHAND
v
 THE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR
  (Criminal Appeal Nos. 469-470 of 2019)
  MARCH 12, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.135 and 152 – Respondent No.2-
BSES alleged that the appellant had committed theft of electricity
and sent a bill of Rs.3,54,598.21/- – Appellant failed to pay the bill
amount – Respondent No.2 filed FIR against the appellant u/s.135
of the Act – However, appellant and Respondent No.2 settled the
matter 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 against
him – High Court dismissed the petition – On appeal, held: The
High 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 petition
afresh, keeping in view the provisions of s.152 of the Act.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondent No.1 rightly pointed out that 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
Electricity Act, 2003.  [Para 14] [702-F]
2.  Since the High Court did not examine the issue in the
light of Section 152 of the Act, this Court considers 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. [Para 15] [702-G-H]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal
Nos. 469-470 of 2019.
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 700
 700
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Court
of  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 (for
B. 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 order
dated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Crl.M.A. No.49292/2018 in Crl.M.C. No.2757/2018 whereby the High
Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein.
3. A few 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. 2-BSES 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.
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.
 MUKESH CHAND v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
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 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.2-BSES.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant (consumer) referring to
condition(iii) of the order dated 11.02.2018 of the Lok Adalat (Annexure
P-5) contended that in the light
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.