Allowed

Somnath P. Harjai v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2012WP/1283/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner Somnath P. Harjai under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for past offences related to electricity theft. The Court held that since the offence was compounded and accused paid the requisite charges/compounding amount, the acceptance of money was deemed acquittal under Section 152(3), making any charge-sheet against him impermissib

What did the court decide?

Fee is accorded and proceedings are quashed only against the petitioner holding that offence stood compounded qua him.

Somnath P. Harjai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP1283-09

¶2

jp chavan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1283 OF 2009

¶5

Somnath P. Harjai ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharahtra and another ... Respondent

¶8

Ms. Bharti Garad i/by Ajay Mishra & Co. for the petitioner, Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State

¶9

Mr. Satish Upadhyay i/by M.V. Kini & Co. for the respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶11

S. S. SHINDE, JJ.

¶12

ORAL JUDGEMENT ( Per A. S. Oka, J.)

¶13

Called out for final hearing. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned APP appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶14

C.R. No. 701 of 2007 was registered with the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station on 22^nd November, 2008 alleging offences under Section 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 2003”). The second respondent i.e. the Brihan Mumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking is the First Informant.

¶15

It is not in dispute that in terms of Section 152(1) of the said Act of

¶16

2003, compounding chargers were paid by the petitioner to the second

¶17

1/4

¶18

WP1283-09

¶19

respondent. By letter dated 27^th December, 2007, the second respondent informed the Senior Inspector of Police, N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai that the petitioner has paid the revised claim amount in its entirety and even compounding charges have been paid. It appears that though the charge sheet was filed against the co-accused, there was no charge sheet filed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed the criminal application No. 1004 of 2008 for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of C.R. No. 701 of 2007. Order dated 4^th August, 2008 passed by this Court on the said Criminal Application reads thus:

¶20

“1. This petition challenges the FIR registered vide C.R. No. 701 of 2007 under section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Thane which has already been culminated in filing of the charge-sheet.

¶21

2. The grievances of the petitioner that although the offence was compounded by him under section 152 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 with the complainant, still proceeding is going on. It appears that the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is compoundable and counsel for the respondent no.2 also agrees that the offence has been compounded. Therefore, we direct the applicant to approach the trial court with an application for compounding the offence.

¶22

In view of aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of”

¶23

It appears that by the impugned communication dated 21^st February, 2009 issued by the Senior Inspector of Police, N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, the petitioner was informed that charge-sheet was already filed

¶24

2/4

¶25

WP1283-09

¶26

against the co accused but as the petitioner was absent, the charge-sheet was not filed as against him. The petitioner was informed to remain present for the purpose of filing charge sheet against him. The challenge in the present petition is to the said communication on the ground that in view of sub section 2 of Section 152 of the said Act of 2003, the offence already stands compounded and hence, the charge sheet cannot be filed. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Police Inspector, attached to N.M. Joshi Marg Police station, Mumbai it is reiterated that a charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to remain present in the police station so that copy of the charge sheet can by supplied to him and supplementary charge sheet would be filed against the petitioner

¶27

After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that as the earlier Criminal Application No.1004 of 2008 was disposed of, perhaps, the parties were under a wrong impression that there is already charge sheet filed against the petitioner. The order of this court clearly records the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the offence has already been compounded under Section 152(3) of the said Act of 2003. Even the communication to that effect was issued by the Divisional Engineer of the second respondent to the Police Station on 22^nd December, 2007. Thus, the admitted position between the petitioner and the second respondent (First Informant) is that the offence has been compounded under Section 152(3) of the said Act of 2003. The acceptance of the money for

¶28

3/4

¶29

WP1283-09

¶30

compounding an offence shall be deemed to be an acquittal as per Section 152(3) of the said Act of 2003.

¶31

In view of the admitted position that the offence stood compounded under Section 152 (2) of the said Act of 2003, there was no occasion to file any charge sheet as against the petitioner.

¶32

As a result, the petition must succeed. Hence, we pass the following

¶33

order.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

i. In view of the admitted position regarding compounding of the offence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, the proceedings stand quashed only as against the petitioner.

¶36

ii. There will be no order as to costs.

¶37

( S.S. SHINDE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶38

4/4

Somnath P. Harjai v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somnath P. Harjai v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhariwal Industtries Limited, Vs 1. Ameya Impex Company through Its Partner, Vishwas Dixit and Anr.

Nitin Chaganlal Nanda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath Prasad Shoke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Intiyaz Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashwani Pishorilal Sharma Vs the Supritendent Central Bereau of Investigation and Ors.

Ballamma Perumal Harijan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.