SALEEM AHMED versus STATE & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 19-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 of
FIR – Allegation of theft of electricity – Demand raised by the
respondent-Electricity Department – Dispute referred to Lok Adalat
– Dispute amicably settled between the appellant-consumer and the
Electricity Department whereby appellant required to pay certain
sum in full and final satisfaction of entire claim – The amount was
duly paid by the appellant – However, subsequently, the respondent
lodged FIR against the appellant in relation to the same demand –
High Court refused to quash the FIR – On appeal, held: The dispute
was amicably settled between the parties and in the order of Lok
Adalat, no liberty was granted to the Department to file FIR against
appellant –  Therefore, filing of FIR was unjust and liable to be
quashed –  Electricity Act –  s. 135 – Compromise/Settlement.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Once the dispute in relation to recovery of
outstanding amount was finally settled between the parties
(appellant and BSES) amicably in Lok Adalat resulting in passing
of the award in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim, there
was neither any occasion and nor any basis to file FIR by the
BSES against the appellant in respect of the cause which was
subject matter of an award.  The remedy of the parties in  such a
case was only to challenge the award in appropriate forum in case
they felt aggrieved by the award. [Paras 14, 15] [673-E-G]
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2
SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922 ; Bhargavi Constructions
& Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (2018) 13
SCC 480 : [2017] 9 SCR 380 – relied on.
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 669
669
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
2. The effect of passing of an award was that dispute in
relation to the demand raised by the BSES was settled amicably
between the parties leaving no dispute surviving. The original
demand was for Rs.97,786/-  whereas the dispute was settled at
Rs.83,120/- in full and final satisfaction of the claim made by the
BSES against the appellant.  The dispute between the parties,
therefore, came to an end for all purposes consequent
upon passing of an award except to the extent of recovery of
the awarded amount of Rs.83,120/-. [Paras 16, 17] [673-G-H;
674-A-B]
3. The award did not contain any condition granting liberty
to the BSES to file an FIR against the appellant under the
Electricity Act notwithstanding settlement of the dispute and
passing of an award in relation to demand in question. On the
other hand, the conditions set out in the award, in clear terms,
record that the dispute was settled in full and final satisfaction of
the demand in question.  The filing of FIR after passing of the
award by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and illegal and the
same was not permissible being against the terms of the award
and also for want of any subsisting cause of action arising out of
demand.   It is, therefore, not legally sustainable. [Paras 18, 20]
[674-C-D; F]
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2
SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922 ; Bhargavi Constructions
& Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (2018) 13
SCC 480 : [2017] 9 SCR 380 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 1 SCR 922
relied on.
Para 15
[2017] 9 SCR 380
relied on.
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1244 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2018 of the High Court
of  Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 4476 of 2018.
Anil Kumar Gautam, V. K. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
671
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.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
05.09.2018 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 by
the appellant herein.
3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the
facts 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 of
respondent No.3 was deleted from the array
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.