REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos.469­470 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.227­228 of 2019)

Mukesh Chand  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State(NCT) of Delhi  & Anr.       ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  10.12.2018  passed  by

the High Court  of  Delhi  at  New Delhi in Crl.M.A.

1

No.49292/2018 in Crl.M.C. No.2757/2018 whereby

the High Court  dismissed  the application  filed by

the appellant herein.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of these appeals, which involve a short

point.

4. The  appellant  was  a  consumer  of electricity.

He, therefore, obtained one electricity connection

from   respondent  No. 2 ­  BSES  Rajdhani Power

Limited(hereinafter referred to as “BSES”) for his

business premises.

5. Respondent No. 2­BSES sent a bill to the

appellant for consumption of electricity to the tune

of Rs. 3,54,598.21 on 22.09.2014. According to

BSES, the appellant had committed theft of

electricity and on it being detected, the bill in

question was sent to the appellant.

2

6. Since the appellant failed to pay the bill

amount, the BSES filed FIR against him under

Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”) and sought the appellant’s

prosecution for commission of theft of electricity

under the Act. It was also followed by notice under

Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

1973(hereinafter referred to as “the Crl.P.C.”).  

7. The appellant and BSES, however, settled the

matter in the Special Lok Adalat held on 11.02.2018

for  a total sum of  Rs.1,60,000/­.  An  order  was

accordingly passed by the Lok Adalat on

11.02.2018.   According to the appellant, he has

deposited the agreed amount in two instalments.

8. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition under

Section  482  of the  Crl.P.C. in the  High  Court of

Delhi seeking therein for quashing of the FIR filed

3

by the BSES against him in relation to the

aforementioned dispute.

9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed

the petition, which has given rise to filing of these

appeals by way of  special leave in this Court by the

appellant(consumer).

10. Heard Mr.  V.K.  Sharma, learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG for

respondent No.1 and Mr. Sonal Jain, learned

counsel for respondent No.2­BSES.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant (consumer)

referring to condition(iii) of the order dated

11.02.2018 of the Lok Adalat (Annexure P­5)

contended that in the light of the settlement arrived

at between the parties wherein the BSES has agreed

to withdraw all the cases filed by them against the

appellant, the  FIR  and  the  criminal  case filed  by

4

BSES against him has to be disposed of in terms of

the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat.

12. In reply, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2­BSES contended that the issue in

question has to be decided keeping in view the

requirements of Section 152 of the Act.

13.    Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting

aside the impugned order remand the case to the

High Court for deciding the petition afresh keeping

in view the provisions of the Section 152 of the Act.

14. As rightly pointed out by  Mr. K.M.  Nataraj,

learned ASG appearing for respondent No.1, the

issue in question needs to be decided in the light of

Section 152 of the Act, which deals with

compounding of offences under the Act.

5

15. Since we find that the  High Court did not

examine the issue in the light of Section 152 of the

Act, we consider it proper to remand the case to the

High Court to examine the issue afresh keeping in

view the provisions of Section 152 of the Act and

then pass appropriate orders as the case may

require on the facts involved therein in accordance

with law.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the

case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the

matter afresh as indicated above.  

17. We make it clear that having formed an

opinion to remand the case, we have not applied our

mind to the merits of the case. The High Court will,

therefore, decide the matter strictly in accordance

6

with law uninfluenced by any observations made by

us in this order.

           ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                                                             ....……..................................J.

       [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; March 12, 2019.

7