Darshana Devi and Usman Vs. State

Darshana Devi and Usman vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 31, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/924521

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/924521
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 31, 2012

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Darshana Devi and Usman

Respondent

State

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

[a. h. joshi, j.] indian penal code, - sections 409, 468, 120b, 405 -- applicants are three in number. the applicant no. 2 was a mayor. advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. the accused have allotted the work to those chosen contractors, adverse and hostile to the interest of the corporation. the municipal corporation jalgaon took up this scheme. the implementing authority was the municipal corporation jalgaon. criminal breach of trust. .....of hearing i.e. on 21.10.2011 following order was passed:-.1. ld. counsel for the applicant submits that an fir no. 278/2000 u/s 379 indian penal code, 1860 read with section 39/44 of the indian electricity act at police station - malviya nagar, new delhi was registered against the petitioner. the present fir was registered against 7 accused persons including the petitioner..2. further submits that on committing the theft of crl.m.c.no.3531/2011 page 1 of 3 electricity, respondent no.2. issued a bill and penalty to the petitioners. same was paid. even thereafter, instant fir was lodged..3. further submits that as per the circular issued by the delhi vidyut board, if the bill has been raised and the paid by the parties, then, no fir shall be lodged against the offenders. however, in the present case, the fir has been lodged..4. ld. counsel for the petitioner has cited the notification of 1996 issued by desu when the respondent no.2. was not in picture and further he has not shown any of the provision, vide which the respondents was not supposed to lodge an fir against the petitioners.".2. learned counsel for the parties have jointly prayed to quash the fir no.278/2000 dated.....

Full Judgment

$~A-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3531/2011 and CRL.M.A. 12530/2011 Judgment delivered on 31.01.2012 DARSHANA DEVI and USMAN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Mukesh Sharma and Mr.Ksjitij Bhardwaj, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Satish Mishra, Advocate for Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State with SI Murari Lal, PS Malviya Nagar Ms. (name not given), Adv. for Mr Samrat Nigam, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).

1. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 21.10.2011 following Order was passed:-.

1. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR No. 278/2000 U/s 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act at Police Station - Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was registered against the Petitioner. The present FIR was registered against 7 accused persons including the Petitioner..

2. Further submits that on committing the theft of Crl.M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 1 of 3 electricity, respondent no.

2. issued a bill and penalty to the petitioners. Same was paid. Even thereafter, instant FIR was lodged..

3. Further submits that as per the circular issued by the Delhi Vidyut Board, if the bill has been raised and the paid by the parties, then, no FIR shall be lodged against the offenders. However, in the present case, the FIR has been lodged..

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has cited the notification of 1996 issued by DESU when the respondent no.

2. was not in picture and further he has not shown any of the provision, vide which the respondents was not supposed to lodge an FIR against the Petitioners.".

2. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly prayed to quash the FIR No.278/2000 dated 28.3.2000 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 389/44 of the Indian Electricity Act registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar as the petitioners have paid all the dues of respondent no.2..

3. Learned APP on the other hand submits that in the event, FIR is quashed, heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed..

4. Keeping the statement of respondent no.2 FIR No. 278/2000 registered at PS Malviya Nagar and emanating proceedings therefrom are quashed..

5. Though I find force in the statement of learned APP, however, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain from imposing Costs. Crl.M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 2 of 3.

6. Crl. M.C. is allowed..

7. Dasti. SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 31, 2012 Nt/RS Crl.M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 3 of 3