Ashok Goel vs State and Another

Rule D.B.

By this petition, the petitioner has ought quashing of FIR No. 320/99 registered at P.S. Mangol Puri for offenses u/s 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with 379, IPC.

We have heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The FIR was registered on 18th March, 1999 alleging therein that a join t=raid was conducted on 18th March, 1999 in MIA Ph. II by Zonal Staff of Delhi Vidyut Board (in short DVB) along with police personnel from Dost Chowki. The petitioner was round indulging in stealing electricity directly form D.V.B. main. Necessary photographs were taken in the presence of police and welding machine/compressor and electricity wire were impounded and deposited in police station as material evidence. Accordingly demand was raised against the petitioner on the basis of theft committed by him. At the same time criminal case was also registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 320/99. The petitioner has paid the amount of the bill as raised by the respondent DVB after the theft was detected by the respondent/DVB. It is only after making the payment that the petitioner has come forward for the quashing of the FIR No. 320/99.

Ms. Vaishali Mehra appearing for Counsel for Delhi Vidyut Board states that full amount of the bill has been paid by the petitioner.

The petitioner has made reference to officer order dated 16th May, 1999 issued by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (as it then was) which reads as under:

"The Special Officer, exercising the powers of DESU/MCD, vide decision NO. 5294/GW/Corp. dated 1st May, 1996 have accorded approval for amendment in the existing tariff so as to limit the period of assessment to four months as against six months in case of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc., for pilferage of energy and/or direct theft in cases were FIR has not been lodged (for whatever reasons) and the consumer is willing to pay the assessment bill at the rate and manner provided in the tariff.

However, In case the consumer does not come forward and is also not willing to pay the assessed bill immediately, Fir will be lodged besides other actions, including filing of Recovery Suit of assessment bill for a period of six months as per existing provisions of the tariff.

This issue with the approval of General Manager."

Perusal of the aforesaid officer order suggests that in case consumer who is found to have tampered with the seals of the meter or involved in direct theft of electricity, besides other would be liable for criminal action. It is subject to one exception that in case the consumer is willing to pay the assessed bill at the rate and int the manner provided in the tariff and would come forward immediately for being assessed, no FIR will be lodged besides other actions.

Counsel for Delhi Vidyut Board contended that petitioner cannot take advantage of this order because he paid the amount of the bill as assessed by Delhi Vidyut Board after the expiry of the period. It is only after the FIR was lodged that petitioner has made the payment.

In this case admittedly petitioner has not challenged the raid of the premises by the official of DVB nor raising of the bill on account of direct theft committed by him. He has in fact paid the amount of the bill raised by the respondent/DVB though not immediately. Since the payment has been made by the petitioner, Therefore, as an exceptional circumstance, we deem it fit to quash the FIR by taking lenient view. Therefore, keeping in view the policy of the Delhi Vidyut Board and the fact that petitioner has already made the payment, we order for quashing of FIR qua the petitioner bearing FIR No. 320/99 u/s 39/44 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379, IPC registered at P.S. Mangol Puri and order of the dropping of any proceedings emanating there from.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed.

Petition disposed of.