Mukesh Kumar Vs. State and anr

Mukesh Kumar vs State and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 07, 2000

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/680714

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/680714
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr. Dalveer Bhandari
Decided On: Sep 07, 2000
Case Number: Crl. Misc. (M). No. 1758 of 2000
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 13: [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph,JJ] Custody of child - Welfare of child vis--vis comity of Courts - The minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to India by her mother. The minor girl was a citizen of U.K. being born in U.K. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in U.K. and had acquired statu...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379; Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39/44

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukesh Kumar

Advocate Mr. H.K. Sharma, Adv

Respondent

State and anr

Advocate Mrs. Sima Gulati & ; Mr. V.K. Shali, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379; Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39/44
Cases Referred: Jai Bhagwan vs. State
Reported In: 92(2001)DLT499

Excerpt

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........j. (oral)1. this is a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing fir no.264/96 registered under sections 379 ipc and 39/44 indian electricity act pending in the court of ms.swarn kanta mehra, m.m., delhi. brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under: 2. on 4.10.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. some officials of the delhi vidyut board (dvb) raided the premises of the petitioner (no.2257, gali hinga bag, khari baoli, delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity against the petitioner from the dvb electric energy poles. delhi vidyut board lodged an fir bearing no.264/96 dated 7.10.1996 under section 379 ipc and 39/44 i.e.act at police station lahori gate, delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner. 3. the petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and the learned asj was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail. it is not disputed that the petitioner after the receipt of the impugned theft bill of rs.2051.89 deposited the entire amount with the dvb. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has now deposited the entire amount, thereforee, the fir filed against him be quashed. 4. a reference has been made to the office order dated 16th may, 1996 issued by delhi electricity supply undertaking (now delhi vidyut board) by the counsel for the petitioner. the same is reproduced as under: ' the special officer, exercising the powers of desu/mcd, vide decision no.5284/gw/corpn. 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 cases of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc., for pilferage of energy and/or direct theft in cases where 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.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.264/96 registered under Sections 379 IPC and 39/44 Indian Electricity Act pending in the court of Ms.Swarn Kanta Mehra, M.M., Delhi. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:

2. On 4.10.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. some officials of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) raided the premises of the petitioner (No.2257, Gali Hinga Bag, Khari Baoli, Delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity against the petitioner from the DVB electric energy poles. Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No.264/96 dated 7.10.1996 under Section 379 IPC and 39/44 I.E.Act at police station Lahori Gate, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and the learned ASJ was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail. It is not disputed that the petitioner after the receipt of the impugned theft bill of Rs.2051.89 deposited the entire amount with the DVB. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has now deposited the entire amount, thereforee, the FIR filed against him be quashed.

4. A reference has been made to the office order dated 16th May, 1996 issued by Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (now Delhi Vidyut Board) by the counsel for the petitioner. The same is reproduced as under:

' The Special Officer, exercising the powers of DESU/MCD, vide decision No.5284/GW/Corpn. 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 cases of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc., for pilferage of energy and/or direct theft in cases where 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 beside other actions, including filing of recovery suit of assessment bill for a period of six months as per existing provisions of the tariff.

This issued with the approval of the General Manager.

5. In view of this office order in a large number of writ petitions this court has quashed the FIRs. Details of the cases are recapitulated as under.

6. In Crl.W.P.No.346/2000 titled as Shiv Bhasin & Ors. vs. The State & Anr. decided on 24.5.2000 Division Bench of this court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S.N.Kapoor, J. court quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings pending in the court of Ms.Swarn Kanta Mehra, M.M., Delhi on the ground that the entire amount has been paid by the petitioner.

7. In Crl.W.P.No.1189/99 titled as Mahender Kumar & Anr. vs. State & Anr. another Division Bench of this court consisting of Anil Dev Singh, J. and R.S.Sodhi, J. quashed the FIR and proceedings emanating there from on the ground that the entire payment has been made by the petitioner.

8. In Crl.W.P.No.56/2000 titled as Harish Puri & Ors. v. State & Anr. decided on 21.3.2000 a Division Bench of this court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S.N.Kapoor, J. quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings in a case in which bill amount was paid by the petitioner.

9. Similar view was also taken in Crl.W.P.No.69/2000 titled as Jai Bhagwan vs. State & Anr. decided on 18.2.2000.

10. The court observed in some of these cases that bare reading of the afore-mentioned office order would suggest that in case a consumer who is found to have tampered with the seals of the meter or involved in direct theft of electricity, beside other action 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 in the manner provided in the tariff and would come forward immediately for being assessed, no FIR would be lodged beside other actions.

11. Learned counsel for the DVB fairly, states that as the amount of the impugned bill has been paid, the DVB has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for the state also has no objection if the FIR and the consequent proceedings arising out of that FIR are quashed.

12. I have carefully perused the office memorandum and the number of orders passed by the Division Benches of this court.

13. In view of the number of orders of the Division Benches of this court, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice, to quash FIR No.264/96 under Sections 379 IPC and 39/44 I.E.Act registered at police station Lahori Gate, Delhi and consequent proceedings pending in the court of Ms.Swarn Kanta Mehra, M.M.

14. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2000 Same Parties Mukesh Kumar vs State and anr Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mr. Dalveer Bhandari Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indi...

Criminal