Mukesh Chand vs.the State (Nct) of Delhi & Anr. - Court Judgment

$~23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-

"10th December, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 2757/2018 & Crl.M.A. 9811/2018 MUKESH CHAND ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 49292/2018 (for revival of the petition) 1. The petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of charge- sheet submitted in relation to FIR No.842/2014 of Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin. He approached this court by the petition (Crl. M.C27572018) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to seek quashing of the said proceedings on the basis of payment of Rs.1,60,000/- to the second respondent, the power distribution company. The said petition was, however, withdrawn by the counsel, on instructions, by order dated 30.08.2018 and was dismissed accordingly. Crl. M.C. 2757/2018 Page 1 of 6 2. The petitioner thereafter filed another petition with similar prayer – Crl.M.C. 5732/2018 – where the fact of he having withdrawn the aforementioned Crl.M.C. 2757/2018 came up whereupon he withdrew the said fresh petition taking liberty from the coordinate bench to move “an appropriate application” in the first said petition, the second such petition having been dismissed accordingly by order dated 15.11.2018. Thus, he has come up with the present application (Crl.M.A.49292/2018) seeking revival of the proceedings in the first petition, the prime contention being that the dispute in the case relates to “civil liability” and, therefore, ruling of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC641 as is referred to by the State would not apply.

3. In Parbatbhai (supra), a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Surpeme Court have summarized the broad principles governing the exercise of extraordinary power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the relevant portion of the said judgment reading thus:-

"the “16. The broad principles which emerge precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : from 16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. Crl. M.C. 2757/2018 Page 2 of 6 16.2 The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. 16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded Crl. M.C. 2757/2018 Page 3 of 6 on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7 As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8 Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10 There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

17. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the first information report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Crl. M.C. 2757/2018 Page 4 of 6 Section 482 to quash the FIR would subserve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court.” 4. Theft of electrical energy is a menace which the society suffers at great cost to itself and to the State. It is a serious offence which affects the financial and economic well being of the State having implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. Without doubt, it is a dispute which cannot be termed, by any stretch of reasoning, to be “private in nature”. The Supreme Court has guided in the above quoted judgment that the “overriding element of public interest” must always be borne in mind while bringing an end to criminal prosecutions under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such offence, which was committed designedly within eye on personal wrongful gain, regardless of consequences to the society at large, does not fall in the category of cases where this court should exercise its inherent power, Crl. M.C. 2757/2018 Page 5 of 6 the use of this jurisdiction, if allowed, being in the nature of “misplaced sympathy”, as observed in the above mentioned ruling.

5. Consequently, the application is dismissed. R.K.GAUBA, J.

DECEMBER10 2018 vk Crl. M.C. 2757/2018 Page 6 of 6