Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

... Petitioner

Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

... RESPONDENTS

Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL %

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

0109.2017 1.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. 5.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1208528',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1208528',
		(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sandeep Shokeen Vs the State Nct of Delhi anr - Citation 1208528 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1208528',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Sandeep Shokeen ',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-09-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....</p>... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....</p>... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % </p>ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.</p><p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.</p><p>4. 5.</p><p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.</p><p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.</p><p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Nct of Delhi & Anr',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => 'http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIG/judgement/11-09-2017/VIG01092017CRLW22902017.pdf',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1208528',
	(int) 1 => 'sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1208528/sandeep-shokeen-vs-state-delhi'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2290/2017 SANDEEP SHOKEEN .....',
	(int) 1 => '... Petitioner<p> Through Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....',
	(int) 2 => '... RESPONDENTS<p> Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State Mr. Sunil Fernades, Standing counsel for BSES RPL with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of respondent No.2-comapny. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ',
	(int) 3 => 'ORDER<p>0109.2017 1.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has handed over a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of Mr. Pradeep Baisoya. Same is taken on record. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against him with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent No.2/BSES. W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 1 of 3 3.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. 5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. The respondent No.2/BSES lodged a complaint which culminated into said FIR against the petitioner. Later on, the respondent No.2 raised a bill of Rs.2,26,587.24 against the petitioner bearing No.HNENR110420140015A0 dated 11.04.2014 for new CA No.400526023. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this bill of Rs.2,26,588/- is inclusive of penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that since the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of Rs.79,287.24. He submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. On deposit of dues, the respondent No.2-company had issued a “No Dues Certificate” to the petitioner. The authorised representative of the respondent No.2 submits that since the entire settlement amount had been received by them from the petitioner, they do not want to pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed. In the circumstances, when the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner had paid the bill raised by the respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, the FIR bearing No.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with Police Station Najafgarh, South West District, Delhi, under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 2 of 3 7.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. DASTI. SEPTEMBER01 2017 “sandeep” VINOD GOEL, J.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

W.P. (Crl.) No.2290/2017 Page 3 of 3

Court	Delhi High Court
Decided On	Sep-01-2017
Appellant	Sandeep Shokeen
Respondent	The State Nct of Delhi & Anr

Sandeep Shokeen vs.the State Nct of Delhi & Anr - Court Judgment