CRL.M.C./4832/2014 of SANJAY SINGH Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 4832/2014

SANJAY SINGH

Through Mr. M.T. Malik, Advocate.

..... Petitioner

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor. Sub Inspector Sahdev, Tomar. Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.16603/2014

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.4832/2014

1.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.165/2012 registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station Jaitpur on 18.05.2012, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., enter appearance and accept notice.

3. It is stated that after the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged, the petitioner has since deposited the entire amount as raised by the second

Crl.M.C. No.4832/2014

respondent in terms of the relevant Assessment Bill for theft (direct theft), and that there are now no dues claimed by the second respondent in terms of the relevant Act and Rules.

4. Counsel for the second respondent affirms this position and states that the matter has been amicably settled; and that the second respondent does not wish to continue with the proceedings any further, and the same be brought to an end.

5. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and also the fact that the complainant / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. is not interested in pursuing the matter any further, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

6. Consequently, and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to number of matters for the proposition that even non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of settlement agreement 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 quietus where the parties have amicably settled the matter, and the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of its success.

7. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.165/2012 registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act (Amend) 2003 at police station Jaitpur on 18.05.2012, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

8. The petition is disposed off.

9. Dasti.

OCTOBER 29, 2014 dr

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J