Dev Kant Kamat vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 12 November, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court

Dev Kant Kamat vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 12 November, 2014

Bench: Sudershan Kumar Misra

$~30
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         CRL.M.C. 5087/2014

          DEV KANT KAMAT                    ..... Petitioner
              Through Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.

                             versus

          STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR              ..... Respondents
              Through   Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                        Inspector Vipin Sharma.
                        Mr. Deepak, Advocate for BSES.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.17408/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.A. No.17409/2014 This application has filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, which is stated to be of 27 days in refiling the petition.

For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed, and the delay in refiling the petition is condoned.

The application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.5087/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.63/2013, registered under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station New Friends Colony, on 14.03.2013, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

Crl.M.C. No.5087/2014 Page 1 of 3

2. Issue notice.

Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Deepak, Advocate for the complainant BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition, enter appearance and accept notice.

5. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged on account of unauthorized abstraction / theft of the electricity. It is further stated that the dispute has now been amicably settled between the parties.

6. Counsel for the petitioner states that on an application made to the complainant, the petitioner was granted a credit of Rs.16,265.23 paisa out of the total charges of Rs.26,265.23 paisa, thereby obliging him to pay the net amount of Rs.10,000/-, which he has done. As a result of this, no further amount is now due and payable to the second respondent / complainant towards the aforesaid Assessment Bill for theft (Director Theft) which was raised pursuant to the inspection carried out on 01.02.2013. The petitioner has also filed a subsequent Assessment Bill for theft (Direct Theft) carrying the print date of 19.06.2013, which bears out these facts and indicates that there are no dues payable by the petitioner on this account.

7. Counsel for the complainant affirms this fact and states that in view of the said payment having been received, the complainant / BSES is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, and states that the same be closed.

8. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and the fact that the parties concerned have settled their dispute amicably, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

9. Looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State Crl.M.C. No.5087/2014 Page 2 of 3 of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties concerned have amicably settled their dispute, and the complainant is not interested in proceeding with the matter since all the dues / payments have been received.

10. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.63/2013, registered under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station New Friends Colony, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

11. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J NOVEMBER 12, 2014/dr Crl.M.C. No.5087/2014 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court