Jasvinder Singh Vs. State and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case debated on justification in denial of anticipatory bail under section 438 of civil procedure code, 1908, in relevance to cheating, conspiracy - it was observed that non standard gears were fitted at the petrol dispensing units at the behest of petitioner and there was short supply of petrol - custodial interrogation was done by the police and there was application for pre-arrest bail - it was found under sections 420 & 120-b of the penal code, 1860, that on the seriousness of offence, gravity of allegations, the custodial interrogation was needed and that there was no grounds to grant the anticipatory bail - the petition was dismissed - section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent residents of u.k. the child with her mother was supposed to return to u.k. but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india. the husband thereupon started procededings before the high court of justice, family division. u.k. praying for an order that the minor child be made a ward of the court and for a direction upon the wife to return the minor child to the jurisdiction of the said court. a further direction was given for the passport and other international travel documents of the minor child to be handed over to the solicitors of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of a minor child. orderdalveer bhandari, j.1. this is a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing fir no.73/99 of p.s.naraina registered under section 44 of the indian electricity act read with section 379 of ipc pending in the court of m.m., delhi. brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:2. on 31.3.1999 some officials of the delhi vidyut board (dvb) raided the premises of the petitioner, wz-430 village naraina, and reported to the police about the theft of electricity against the petitioner. delhi vidyut board lodged an fir bearing no.73/99 dated 31.3.1999 at p.s.naraina under section 44 of the indian electricity act read with section 379 of ipc for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner.3. the petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and the learned asj was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail.4. it is not disputed that the petitioner after the receipt of the impugned theft bill of rs.1,38,243.77 deposited the entire amount with the dvb. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has now deposited the entire amount, thereforee, the fir filed against him be quashed.5. learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the number of judgments of division bench of this court.6. in crl.w.p.no.346/2000 titled as shiv bhasin & ors. vs. the state & anr. decided on 24.5.2000 the division bench of this court consisting of usha mehra, j. and s.n.kapoor, j. the court quashed the fir and consequent proceedings pending in the court of ms.swarn kanta mehra, m.m., delhi as full amount has been paid.7. in crl.w.p.no.1189/99 titled as mahender kumar & anr. vs. state & anr. a division bench of this court consisting of anil dev singh, j. and r.s.sodhi, j. quashed the fir and proceedings emanating there from as the payment has already been made.8. in crl.w.p.no.56/2000 titled as harish puri & ors. vs.state & anr. decided on 21.3.2000 division bench of this court consisting of usha mehra, j. and s.n.kapoor, j. quashed the fir and consequent proceedings.9. in these writ petitions a reference has been made to the office order dated 16th may, 1996 issued by delhi electricity, supply undertaking (now delhi vidyut board). the same is reproduced as under:' the special officer, exercising the powers of desu/mcd, vide decision no.5284/gw/corpn. dated 1st may, 1996 have accorded approval for amendment in the existing tariff so as to limit the period of assessment to four months as against six months in cases of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc., for pilferage of energy and/or direct theft in cases where fir has not been lodged (for whatever reasons) and the consumer is willing to pay the assessment bill at the rate and manner provided in the tariff.however, in case the consumer does not come forward and is also not willing to pay the assessed bill immediately, fir will be lodged beside other actions, including filing of recovery suit of assessment bill for a period of six months as per existing provisions of the tariff.this issues with the approval of the general manager.10. the court observed that bare reading of the afore-mentioned office order would suggest that in case consumer who is found to have tampered with the seals of the meter or involved in direct theft of electricity, beside other action would be liable for criminal action. it is subject to one exception that in case the consumer is willing to pay the assessed bill at the rate and in the manner provided in the tariff and would come forward immediately for being assessed, no fir would be lodged beside other actions.11. similar view was also taken in crl.w.p. no.69/2000 titled as jai bhagwan vs. state & anr. decided on 18.2.2000.12. learned counsel for the dvb states that as the amount of the impugned bill has been paid, dvb has no objection if the fir is quashed. learned counsel for the state also has no objection if the fir and the consequent proceedings arising out of that fir are quashed.13. i have carefully perused the office memorandum and the number of orders passed by division bench of this court.14. in view of the number of orders of the division bench of this court, i deem it appropriate in the interest of justice, to quash fir no.73/99 of p.s.naraina registered under section 44 of the indian electricity act read with section 379 of ipc pending in the court of m.m., delhi.15. this petition is accordingly disposed of dusty.

Judgment:
ORDER

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.73/99 of P.S.Naraina registered under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC pending in the court of M.M., Delhi. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:

2. On 31.3.1999 some officials of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) raided the premises of the petitioner, WZ-430 Village Naraina, and reported to the police about the theft of electricity against the petitioner. Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No.73/99 dated 31.3.1999 at P.S.Naraina under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and the learned ASJ was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail.

4. It is not disputed that the petitioner after the receipt of the impugned theft bill of Rs.1,38,243.77 deposited the entire amount with the DVB. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has now deposited the entire amount, thereforee, the FIR filed against him be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the number of judgments of Division Bench of this Court.

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

7. In Crl.W.P.NO.1189/99 titled as Mahender Kumar & Anr. vs. State & Anr. a Division Bench of this court consisting of Anil Dev Singh, J. and R.S.Sodhi, J. quashed the FIR and proceedings emanating there from as the payment has already been made.

8. In Crl.W.P.No.56/2000 titled as Harish Puri & Ors. vs.State & Anr. decided on 21.3.2000 Division Bench of this court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S.N.Kapoor, J. quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings.

9. In these writ petitions a reference has been made to the office order dated 16th May, 1996 issued by Delhi Electricity, Supply Undertaking (now Delhi Vidyut Board). The same is reproduced as under:

' The Special Officer, exercising the powers of DESU/MCD, vide decision No.5284/GW/Corpn. dated 1st May, 1996 have accorded approval for amendment in the existing tariff so as to limit the period of assessment to four months as against six months in cases of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc., for pilferage of energy and/or direct theft in cases where FIR has not been lodged (for whatever reasons) and the consumer is willing to pay the assessment bill at the rate and manner provided in the tariff.

However, in case the consumer does not come forward and is also not willing to pay the assessed bill immediately, FIR will be lodged beside other actions, including filing of recovery suit of assessment bill for a period of six months as per existing provisions of the tariff.

This issues with the approval of the General Manager.

10. The court observed that bare reading of the afore-mentioned office order would suggest that in case consumer who is found to have tampered with the seals of the meter or involved in direct theft of electricity, beside other action would be liable for criminal action. It is subject to one exception that in case the consumer is willing to pay the assessed bill at the rate and in the manner provided in the tariff and would come forward immediately for being assessed, no FIR would be lodged beside other actions.

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

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

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

14. In view of the number of orders of the Division Bench of this court, I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice, to quash FIR No.73/99 of P.S.Naraina registered under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC pending in the court of M.M., Delhi.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of dusty.