Rajender Singh Lohia v. State & Ors

(2) CRL.M.C. 2899/2013 RAJENDER SINGH LOHIA Petitioner Through: Mr. T.K. Mukhejaand Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates versus STATE & ORS Through: Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Babu Lai Mr. M.D. Sharique Hussain and Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocates for respondentNo.2 with Mrs. Jaya, Manager (Legal)

BSES-RPL + (3) CRL.M.C. 2900/2013 RAJENDER SINGH LOHIA Petitioner Through: Mr. T.K. Mukheja and Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates CRL.M.C.2898. 2899, 2900, 2901, 2902 & 2903 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7908 + + (4)

VERSUS

Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocates for respondent No.2 with Mrs. Jaya, CRL.M.C. 2901/2013 RAJINDER SINGH LOHIA Through: Petitioner Mr. T.K. Mukheja and (5)

VERSUS

CRL.M.C. 2902/2013 RAJENDER SINGH LOHIA Through: Petitioner Mr. T.K. Mukheja and STATE & ORS versus CRL.M.C.2898, 2899, 2900, 2901, 2902 & 2903 of2013 Page 2 + (6) CRL.M.C. 2903/2013 RAJENDER SINGH LOfflA Petitioner Through: Mr. T.K. Mukheja and Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates versus STATE & ORS Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 31.07.2013 CRL.M.C.2898/2013 & CrLM.A. 11000/2013 (Stay) & CRL.M.C.2899/2013 & CrI.M.A. 11006/2013 (Stay) & CRL.M.C.2900/2013 & CrLM.A. 11010/2013 (Stay) & CRL.M.C.2901/2013 & CRL.M.C. 2902/2013 & CrLM.A. 11013/2013 (Stay) & CRL.M.C. 2903/2013 & CrLM.A. 11016/2013 (Stay) Quashing ofFIRs No.420; 419; 422; 428; 418 & 424 of 2012 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act registered at P.S.Vasant Kunj, Delhi in above-captioned six petitions is sought on identical ground i.e. of CRL.M.C.2898, 2899, 2900, 2901, 2902 & 2903 of2013 Page 3 receiving 'No Dues Certificate' of27^ December, 2012 from respondentcomplainant and so these petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order. Notice. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent-State. Mr. M.D. Sharique Hussain, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2/first-informant ofthe FIRs in question and submits, on instructions from Mrs. Jaya, Manager (Legal) BSES-RPL, that nothing is due towards petitioners in respect of subject matter of FIRs in question and 'No Dues Certificates' have been already issuedto petitioners and so, the proceedings arising out ofthese FIRs be brought to an end. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:- "However, certain ojfences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating todowry, etc. or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework ofits inherentpower, quash the criminalproceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal CRL.M.C.2898, 2899, 2900, 2901, 2902 &2903 of2013 Page 4 proceedings, justice shall he casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. " Since the dispute, which is the subject matter of FIRs in question is essentially of commercial nature, which stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, this Court finds that continuance of the proceedings arising out of these FIRs in question would be an exercise in futility. Consequently, these six petitions are allowed and FIRs No.420; 419; 422; 428; 418 & 424 of 2012 under Section 135 ofthe Electricity Act registered at P.S.Vasant Kunj, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner. These six petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of (SUNIL GAUR) Judge JULY 31, 2013 s