Ram Dhari vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J. (Oral)

F.I.R. No. 14 dated 19.1.1989 was lodged with police station, Shahbad, District Kurukshetra against the petitioner Ram Dhari and others for theft of electric energy under Section 379 I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Electricity Act (Annexure P1). Petitioner Ram Dhari had approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings.

According to the petitioner, Haryana State Electricity Board has framed a policy under Annexure P3 whereunder the Board had decided to receive onetime compensation and withdraw the case on payment of said compensation by those persons who committed theft of electric energy. The relevant portion of the policy reads as under:

"The matter has further been reviewed and it has been decided by the Board that one time compensation from the consumers of different categories may be charged as per the rates mentioned below, where the theft of energy is detected and the offender comes forward voluntarily to settle and make payment of the amount of compensation.

Sr. No. Category Compensation Charges.

Domestic supply. Rs. 5000/ per KW of sanctioned load.

Nondomestic supply. Rs. 1000/ per KW of sanctioned load.

Agricultural supply. Rs. 750/ per BHP of sanctioned load.

L.T. Industrial supply. Rs. 1000/ per BHP of sanctioned load.

H.T. Industrial supply. Rs. 1500/ per KVA of sanctioned contract demand.

The above charges will be as one time compensation payable by the consumer to the HSEB where theft is detected and will not be recoverable to using malpractice.

"This F.I.R. will be withdrawn and connection restored only after the deposit of the compensation stated above."

"It has also been decided by the Board that the above criteria may also be applicable to the previous cases which are pending and for which FIRs have been lodged on account of detection of theft/pilferage of energy. The concerned SDOs (OP) may convey the above decision of the Board to such consumers and it the defaulting consumer wished to come forward for a final settlement of the matter, they can do so."

The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has paid the compensation under annexure P2 dated 27.8.1992 and, therefore, claims that view of the policy (Annexure P3), the State could have withdrawn from the prosecution, which they have not done. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of the F.I.R. in so far as he is concerned.

The respondentState has filed a reply alleging that the challan has been filed in this case and the case is fixed the evidence of the prosecution and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has got the remedy to file a revision.

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Of course, after filing of the challan, normally, this court will not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. But here is a case where the complaintant has framed the policy to accept one time compensation for the theft of electric energy and to withdraw the case, and accordingly, has received the compensation from the petitioner under annexure P2. In such circumstances, the complaint will not support the case of the prosecution and it will be a mere futile exercise to continue the F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings in so far as they relate to the petitioner. In view of these compelling circumstances, I deem this to be a proper case where the F.I.R. in question and the consequential proceedings in so far as they relate to the petitioner, should be quashed, as no useful purpose will be served.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed quashing the F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings in question is so far as they relate to the petitioner only.