Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On merits, he has denied that he was member of raiding party who has conducted the raid on 30.9.1997 along with defendant Nos. 4 and 5 at Vijay Vihar. He further stated that the defendant No. 1 was neither aware nor he has been informed by anybody that Smt. Uma Devi was the owner of the premises / shop. He further denied that the plaintiff was falsely implicated in the case and thus, he is not entitled to any damages on account of malacious litigation.

He further averred that the A.E. Zone No. 1, DVB, Rohini has lodged a complaint to the Police Station Mangolpuri about stealing of electricity directly from the DVB LV Mains and on the basis of his complaint, FIR No. 996/1997 under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested and after investigation, charge­sheet was filed. He was convicted by the court of Sh. Chandra Bose but in appeal he was Suit No. 12246/16 Anoop Kumar Vs. Rajesh Rathi & Ors. Page No. 5 of 54 acquitted by the court of Sh. RPS Teji on the technical ground. Hence, in these circumstance defendant has not maliciously prosecuted him therefore suit is liable to be dismissed,

7. In the replication to the written statement of defendant No. 3, plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement as wrong and reiterated the contents of plaint as correct.

8. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed their joint written statement in which they have stated that suit is not maintainable against them as per provisions of Order 27 Rule 5A of CPC. Further, it is stated that the enforcement department of the erstwhile DVB carried out the inspection to detect theft of energy on 30.9.1997. The plaintiff has not arrayed the successor of the erstwhile DVB now the NDPL as a party to the present suit. The defendants cannot be sued personally in their individual the capacity as they were performed their official duty. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff has nowhere stated that the officials of the erstwhile DVB had any enmity or they were bent upon to prosecute the plaintiff without any reasonable cause of justification. The officials of the DVB in order to curb the rampant theft of electricity in the NCT of Delhi, carried out an inspection on 30.9.1997 in which the plaintiff was indulged in direct theft of electricity. The said inspection was in routine and several inspection was carried out in different parts of NCT of Delhi to detect theft of electricity. The prosecution Suit No. 12246/16 Anoop Kumar Vs. Rajesh Rathi & Ors. Page No. 7 of 54 against the plaintiff was lodged in the routine manner and there was no ill will or enmity against the plaintiff. The said inspection team has reasonable grounds for thinking that the plaintiff was guilty of theft of electricity. The said inspection dated 30.9.1997 has not been set aside by any civil court.

33. The counsel for defendants further contended that there was reasonable and probable cause for the defendant no. 4 to lodging a complaint as during the raid by the raiding party consist of various officials of the erstwhile DVB direct theft was found at the shop of liquor run by the DTTDC on enquiry employees have given name as Anoop Singh therefore his name was mentioned in the inspection report on the basis of which complaint was lodged. It is submitted by counsel for respondents that plaintiff did not send a single letter stating either to the DVB officials or to the police that not he but his wife is the owner of the said shop. He further submits that neither the DVB official nor the police has any means to know that plaintiff is not the owner but his wife as no documents of ownerships of the property was furnished either to the DVB officials not to the police. The property where raid was conducted is situated in the unauthorized colony where it is very difficult to ascertained the ownership as no regisrer sale deed is done.

59. Defendant no.4 & 5 in the WS has stated that TPDDL which has taken over erstwhile DVB was necessary party but in my view there was no need to made DVB as party if according to plaintiff it is the individual act of the defendants no.4 and 5 done malafidely which is responsible for his prosecution there was no requirement to claim compensation from DVB though it would be proper party, but suit is not liable to be dismissed on this ground. Hence, I held that defendants have failed to prove that suit is not maintainable in present form. Issue no. 3 is decided against the defendants.