Saleem Ahmed vs State

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1244 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8801 of 2018)

Saleem Ahmed ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C. No.4476 of

2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

filed by the appellant herein.

ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.08.19 17:13:02 IST Reason: 1

3. The appeal involves a short point as would be

clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

4. The appellant is the owner of the house

bearing No. F­11/75 (SF), Khasra No. 2271/4,

Malviya Nagar, Khirkee Extn., New Delhi. The

appellant let out this house to respondent No. 3

(the name of respondent No.3 was deleted from

the array of the parties by this Court order dated

25.04.2019) on monthly rent.

5. On 15.12.2014, the officials of the

Enforcement Department of BSES Rajdhani Power

Ltd.­respondent No. 2 herein inspected the

electricity meter installed in the aforesaid house and

found that the meter was not recording correct

reading.

6. On verification, the BSES made assessment in

relation to the consumption of the electricity and

accordingly sent a bill for theft for Rs. 97,786/­ to

the appellant and respondent No. 3 because he

2 being in occupation of the house was found

consuming the electricity supplied by the BSES. The

case was accordingly registered against the

appellant and respondent No.3 being case No. ID ­

RJ 151214SC102 (CRN No. 25201 72444/SAKET)­

PLA No. 1/37/2015.

7. On 27.02.2015, the BSES organized one

Permanent Lok Adalat­I in Lower Courts at Delhi

under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities

Act, 1987 to settle their several recovery cases. The

appellant's case was also fixed for settlement.

8. By order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P­2),

the case was settled at Rs.83,120/­ against full and

final payment of the aforesaid bill of Rs.97,786/­.

The appellant accordingly paid Rs.83,120/­ to the

BSES in terms of the order dated 27.02.2015 in

three equal installments. The order reads as under:

“In this case, the petitioner had approached this Court for settlement with regard to DT bill amounting to Rs.97,786/­ based on inspection dated 15.12.2004. A proposal for

3 settlement was given on behalf of the petitioner, which was duly recorded in the Order dated 13.02.2015.

Sh. Rajesh Arora submits that after examining this proposal, the competent authority has agreed to settle this bill for a sum of Rs.83,120/­. This offer has now been accepted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is now agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.83,120/­ in full and final settlement against the impugned bill of Rs.97,786/­. It is further agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall deposit the said amount of Rs.83,120/­ in three equal installments. The amount of the first installment shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 09.03.2015, the amount of second installment on or before 30.03.2015 and the amount of third installment, on or before 30.04.2015. The said amount will be deposited at Andrews Ganj office. It is further agreed that in case the petitioner defaults in making the payment of any of the installments, he shall be liable to make the payment of the full amount of the impugned bill forthwith.

It is further agreed that after deposit of the amount of first two installments, the request of the petitioner for release of a new connection will be processed immediately thereafter and new connection will be released within one week from the date of deposit of the second installment, subject to completion of concerned formalities including deposit of any other outstanding amount against the premises in question.

With this order, the dispute between the parties stands settled amicably. The said settlement has been recorded without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. 4 Parties are directed to sign this order of settlement. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties for compliance.”

9. Despite settlement of the case and receiving

the payment, the BSES filed FIR No.548/15 against

the appellant on 21.03.2015 under Section 135 of

the Electricity Act in P.S. Malviya Nagar, South

Delhi in relation to the same demand.

10. The appellant felt aggrieved by the registration

of FIR against him and filed a petition under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) in the High

Court challenging its registration as being bad in

law.

11. The High Court, by impugned order,

dismissed the petition, which has given rise to filing

of the present appeal by way special leave by the

appellant in this Court.

5

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order, allow the petition filed by the

appellant under Section 482 of the Code and quash

FIR No.548/15.

14. In our opinion, once the dispute in relation to

recovery of outstanding amount was finally settled

between the parties (appellant and BSES) amicably

in Lok Adalat resulting in passing of the award

dated 27.02.2015 in full and final satisfaction of the

entire claim, there was neither any occasion and

nor any basis to file FIR by the BSES against the

appellant in respect of the cause which was subject

matter of an award.

6

15. The remedy of the parties in such a case was

only to challenge the award in appropriate forum in

case they felt aggrieved by the award. Such was,

however, not the case here. (See­ State of Punjab &

Anr. vs. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660

and Bhargavi Constructions & Anr. vs.

Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors., (2018) 13

SCC 480)

16. In our opinion, the effect of passing of an

award was that dispute in relation to the demand

raised by the BSES was settled amicably between

the parties leaving no dispute surviving. The

original demand was for Rs.97,786/­ whereas the

dispute was settled at Rs.83,120/­ in full and final

satisfaction of the claim made by the BSES against

the appellant.

7

17. The dispute between the parties, therefore,

came to an end for all purposes consequent upon

passing of an award except to the extent of recovery

of the awarded amount of Rs.83,120/­. It is not in

dispute that the appellant paid the awarded amount

to the BSES in terms of the award dated 27.02.2015

and the same was also accepted by the BSES

without any protest. The award thus stood fully

satisfied.

18. We also find that the award did not contain

any condition granting liberty to the BSES to file an

FIR against the appellant under the Electricity Act

notwithstanding settlement of the dispute and

passing of an award in relation to demand in

question. On the other hand, the conditions set out

in the award, in clear terms, record that the dispute

has been settled in full and final satisfaction of the

demand in question. It is not in dispute that

8 Section 152 of the Electricity Act empowers the

officer concerned to compound the offences

punishable under the Electricity Act.

19. In our view, if the BSES was so keen to file FIR

against the appellant under the Electricity Act then

either they should not have settled the matter

through Lok Adalat or while settling should have

put a condition in the award reserving therein their

right to file FIR notwithstanding settlement of the

dispute in question. This was, however, not done.

20. We are, therefore, of the considered view that

the filing of FIR after passing of the award by the

Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and illegal and the

same was not permissible being against the terms of

the award and also for want of any subsisting cause

of action arising out of demand. It is, therefore, not

legally sustainable.

9

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned

order is set aside. As a consequence, the petition

filed under Section 482 of the Code by the appellant

is allowed and FIR No. 548/2015 registered in PS

Malviya Nagar, South Delhi against the appellant is

hereby quashed.

.………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi;

August 19, 2019

10