The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR and associated proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 after the complainant recalled the disputed bill and confirmed the matter was amicably settled between the parties.
FIR No.217/2016 and proceedings arising out thereof under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~13
VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. with Ms.Saakshi Agarwal and Ms.Nidhi Soni, Advs. with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms.Kamna Vohar, ASC for the State with ASI Ved Parkash, P.S. Lahori Gate. Mr.Manish Srivastava, Adv. with Ms.Shagun Trisal and Mr.Aditya Gupta, Advs. for BSES with AR Mr.Rajiv Manchanda, Asst. Vice President, in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
O R D E R % 18.09.2017
Page 1 of 3
W.P. (Crl.) No.1799/2017
said FIR against the petitioner.
Page 2 of 3
W.P. (Crl.) No.1799/2017
proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017/jitender
Page 3 of 3
W.P. (Crl.) No.1799/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and proceedings arising out of it should be quashed after the disputed bill was recalled and parties settled amicably.
Whether securing ends of justice requires quashing the FIR where the matter has been amicably settled.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD
STATE
BSES
VINOD GOEL
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
