Purn Mal v. State & Anr

ORDER %

03.11.2011

¶1Tlnis is a petition for quashing of FIR no.134/2011, u/S 135/138/ 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 201 IPG registered by P.S. Naraina.

¶2It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has settled matter with service provider/respondent no.2 by paying a lump sum amount of Rs.25,060/- inasmuch as the bill for a sum of Rs.29,433/- was raised after inspecting the premises in question. Copy of the bill for a sum of Rs.29,433/- is placed at page no 10 and the receipt of the amount which has been paid, is placed at page 11. It is further contended since matter is very insignificant there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the theft or fraudulent abstraction of electricity, therefore, Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. J interest of justice, aforesaid FIR consequent proceedings be quashed.

¶3ivir.Wadhwa, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2/servjce provider on account of an advance notice having been served on hin^ iie.has made a statement at bar that he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR is quashed on account of the fact that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25,060/- towards the full and final settlement of the bill.

¶4The learned APP is also present in response to an advance copy having been servetKon him and has contested plea for quashing of the aforesaid FIR by referring to the allegations made by the complainant FIR, which shows that petitioner had deliberately removed electric meter,, either himself or throi^gh his authorized representative, so that the offence is not detected.

¶5It is further contended since it is a case of destruction of evidence case is still at investigation stage, therefore, in the fitness of things, the FIR may not be quashed.

¶6I have carefully considered the respective submissions of all the parties.

¶7Since bill which has been raised by the respondent no.2 shows that the amount of Rs.l906/- has already been levelled on account of the cost of the meter while settling the matter, which implies that the amount of Rs.25,060/- which has been paid in lump sum by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 takes care of the cost of the meter also. Since the. tentacles of the fraudulent abstraction of electricity are not very large, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid FIR and the consequent investigation against the present petitioners pending.

¶8Accordingly, interest of justice, FIR no.134/2011, u/S 135/138/ 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 201 IPG registered by P.S. Naraina consequent investigation which is carried out by the respondent no.l are quashed.

¶9Parties to bear their own costs. NOVEMBER 03, 2011 RN V.K. SHALI.J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3602/2011 PURN MAL Petitioner Througii l^lr.H.L.Verma, Adv. versus STATE &ANR Respondents Tlnrougin i^r.Visliva Wadliwa, Adv. for R-2 l^r.Sunil Sliarma, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI