Delhi District Court
Pramod Gupta vs The State on 28 September, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ASJ-05 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 26/15
FIR NO: 08/2010
PS : RAJINDER NAGAR
U/s 420 IPC
Pramod Gupta
S/o Sh. Chandra Prakash
R/o 16A/15, WEA Karol Bagh
New Delhi. ........ Revisionist
Versus
The State .....Respondent
Date of institution : 17.12.2014
Date of receiving by this Court : 09.02.2015
Date of conclusion of final arguments/
reservation of judgment : 17.09.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.09.215
ORDER
1. Present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Pramod Gupta against the impugned order dated 18.09.2014 passed by Learned MM in case FIR No.08/2010, PS Rajinder Nagar, U/s 420 IPC titled as State Vs. Pramod whereby the learned MM issued directions for framing of charge u/s 420 IPC against the petitioner/Pramod.
2. The brief facts necessary to decide the present revision petition are that one K.K. Gujral, landlord and owner of property bearing No.16A/ 15, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi filed a complaint in the court of M.M. to register an FIR Crl.Rev. No.26/15 titled Parmod Gupta Vs. State dt. 28.09.2015. Page 1 of 3 2 against the petitioner. In his complaint, he stated that the petitioner is the tenant in house No. 16A/15, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Already, two electricity meters in the name of the owner were installed in the tenanted premises and the petitioner was not paying his electricity bills regularly. Since the petitioner was the employee of BSES, he illegally got installed a new electricity meter by filing a false undertaking, affidavit and indemnity bond claiming himself to be the owner. On the basis of which BSES officials installed a new meter without his knowledge. On this, the complainant met with XEN but to no avail.
3. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, the M.M. directed registration of FIR against the petitioner Pramod Gupta u/s 420 IPC. FIR was registered and charge-sheet was filed. Pursuant to which, impugned order dated 18.09.2014 was passed with directions to frame charge u/s 420 IPC against the petitioner Pramod Gupta.
4. I have learned counsel for the petitioner Pramod Gupta and have gone through the trial court record with utmost care.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that the order dated 18.09.2014 is manifestly illegal. The complainant got registered this false FIR to settle score with the petitioner as he wants to evict him by hook or the crook. He has already filed a number of eviction petitions against the petitioner to evict him from the tenanted premises.
6. It is the admitted position that the petitioner and complainant are tenant and landlord in premises bearing No.16A/15, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Pramod Gupta had filed an undertaking, affidavit and indemnity bond claiming himself to be the owner of premises No. 16A/15, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is a known fact that new connection can be obtained both by the owner and the occupant in any Crl.Rev. No.26/15 titled Parmod Gupta Vs. State dt. 28.09.2015. Page 2 of 3 3 of the premises in either capacity. Hence, even if the petitioner did declare himself to be the owner of the premises is of no consequence, so far as the installation of meter by BSES is concerned. Had the petitioner Pramod Gupta declared himself to be the tenant and had applied for the installation of new electricity meter, he would still got the new electricity meter installed in the tenanted premises. Also that been held in a catena of decisions that electricity connection/meter can be obtained even by the tenant, provided he is a legal occupant of the premises and there is no requirement of any No Objection Certificate from the landlord. Otherwise also, if anyone was at all allegedly cheated, it was the BSES and not the landlord/ complainant K.K. Gujaral as no wrongful loss was caused to him.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no offence of cheating is made out against the petitioner Pramod Gupta. Since, only a false declaration was given by the revisionist Parmod Gupta to BSES, prima facie offence U/s 191 IPC is made out against him. The impugned order dated 18.09.2014 is thus set aside. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Revisionist is directed to appear before Learned Trial Court now on 1.10.2015.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT ON : 28.09.2015 (Hemani Malhotra) ASJ-05 (Central)/THC/Delhi 28.09.2015 Crl.Rev. No.26/15 titled Parmod Gupta Vs. State dt. 28.09.2015. Page 3 of 3