High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 4 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 DEL CK 0007

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 135
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No..4438 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 349 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.31181/2018 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.A.31182/2018 (for condonation of delay in re-filing)

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

The delay in re-filing of the petition is condoned.

1.

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.980/2015 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi, based

on a settlement.

2.

The subject FIR was registered for theft of electricity consequent to a raid that had taken place in the premises of the petitioner where direct theft

was found. A direct theft bill of Rs.1,95,460.46/- was raised. Thereafter petitioner approached the respondents and the parties had settled their

disputes. It was agreed that a total amount of Rs.65,200/- shall be paid by the petitioner. The said amount has been paid and a No Dues Certificate

dated 01.02.2016 has been issued.Â

3.

Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of the respondent No.2 is present in Court in person. He submits that the respondent No.2 has

settled the disputes with the petitioner and has received the entire settlement amount of the theft bill. He has instructions to state that the respondent

No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings as the respondent No.2 has received the said settlement

amount of Rs.65,200/-.

4.

In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No. 2 does not wish to press its complaint, continuation of criminal

proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;

securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings

emanating there from.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.980/2015 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Kalkaji, New

Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.

6.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. Â