Quashed

Sanjay Kumar Bathla & Anr. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jan 2017CRL.M.C./208/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR for theft and mischief under the Indian Electricity Act on grounds of settlement. Court quashed proceedings after parties expressed settlement and payment in court.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 73/2012 under Section 379 IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.

Sanjay Kumar Bathla & Anr. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)… — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 208/2017

¶4

SANJAY KUMAR BATHLA & ANR

¶5

..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms. Ragini Saxena, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

¶8

..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI Rajender Singh PS Paschim Vihar. Mr. Puneeth K.G., Adv. for R-2/BSES with Ms. Jaya Thakuria, Sr. Legal Manager.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶10

O R D E R % 18.01.2017 Crl.M.A. 931/2017

¶11

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 208/2017

¶13

By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 73/2012 under Section 379 IPC and 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and IPC registered at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.

¶14

page 1 of 2

¶15

CRL.M.C. 208/2017

¶16

Ms. Jaya Thakuria, Senior Legal Manager and authorized representative of respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel. She states that initially a theft bill for a sum of ₹52,552/was raised against the petitioner and thereafter the same has now been revised pursuant to a one time settlement between the parties for a sum of ₹17,516/- which has been paid by the petitioner. Thus, the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the above-noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶17

Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2.

¶18

Since the parties have settled the matter, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of the above proceedings, rather the same would be an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶19

Consequently, FIR No. 73/2012 under Section 379 IPC and 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and IPC registered at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

¶20

Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

¶21

The petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

¶22

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶23

JANUARY 18, 2017 ‘ga’

¶24

CRL.M.C. 208/2017 page 2 of 2

Sanjay Kumar Bathla & Anr. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Bathla & Anr. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & 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

Harish Arora Vs State & Anr.

Pradeep Pandey Vs State

Varun Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi ) & Ors.

Dr.Hemendrapal Singh Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Sachin Kumar Vs State

Chandni Madan @ Mehta Vs State & Ors.