The High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act regarding an alleged electricity theft. The court held that as the dispute was settled and compensation paid, there was no purpose in continuing the prosecution.
FIR No.378/2016 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and consequent proceedings 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.
$~53
JUHI KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr Jagjit Singh Arya, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Through : Ms Anita Abraham, Addl. PP for the State. Ms Anju Thomas for Mr Sunil Fernandes, Advocate for R-2. ASI Padam Kaur, PS Malviya Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 17.01.2018 Crl. M.A. 907/2018(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 233/2018
Crl.M.C.233/2018
Page 1
and settled the amount at Rs.2,98,000/-.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 17, 2018 ‘Sn’
Crl.M.C.233/2018
Page 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act regarding alleged theft of electricity can be quashed upon settlement.
Whether the quashing of the FIR is generally in the interest of justice given the parties' settlement and ascertained loss.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Juhi Kumari
State (NCT of Delhi)
Sunil Fernandes
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
