# MUKESH CHAND v. THE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR

- **Citation:** [2019] 4 S.C.R. 700
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-03-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 469-470 of 2019
- **Bench:** Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mukesh-chand-v-the-state-nct-of-delhi-anr-33524
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Electricity Act, 2003 - ss.135 and 152 - Respondent No.2BSES alleged that the appellant had committed theft of electricity
and sent a bill of Rs.3,54,598.21/- - Appellant failed to pay the bill
amount - Respondent No.2 filed FIR against the appellant u/s.135
of the Act - However, appellant and Respondent No.2 settled the
matter in the Special Lok Adalat for a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- -
Appellant filed petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR filed against
him - High Court dismissed the petition - On appeal, held: The
High Court did not examine the issue in the light of s.152 of the Act
- Thus, case remanded to the High Court for deciding the petition
afresh, keeping in view the provisions of s.152 of the Act.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondent No.1 rightly pointed out that the
issue in question needs to be decided in the light of Section 152
of the Act, which deals with compounding of offences under the
Electricity Act, 2003. [Para 14] [702-F]
2. Since the High Court did not examine the issue in the
light of Section 152 of the Act, this Court considers it proper to
remand the case to the High Court to examine the issue afresh
keeping in view the provisions of Section 152 of the Act and then
pass appropriate orders as the case may require on the facts
involved therein in accordance with law. [Para 15] [702-G-H]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
 MUKESH CHAND
v
 THE STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR
 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 469-470 of 2019)
 MARCH 12, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Electricity Act, 2003 - ss.135 and 152 - Respondent No.2BSES alleged that the appellant had committed theft of electricity
and sent a bill of Rs.3,54,598.21/- - Appellant failed to pay the bill
amount - Respondent No.2 filed FIR against the appellant u/s.135
of the Act - However, appellant and Respondent No.2 settled the
matter in the Special Lok Adalat for a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- -
Appellant filed petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR filed against
him - High Court dismissed the petition - On appeal, held: The
High Court did not examine the issue in the light of s.152 of the Act
- Thus, case remanded to the High Court for deciding the petition
afresh, keeping in view the provisions of s.152 of the Act.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondent No.1 rightly pointed out that the
issue in question needs to be decided in the light of Section 152
of the Act, which deals with compounding of offences under the
Electricity Act, 2003. [Para 14] [702-F]
2. Since the High Court did not examine the issue in the
light of Section 152 of the Act, this Court considers it proper to
remand the case to the High Court to examine the issue afresh
keeping in view the provisions of Section 152 of the Act and then
pass appropriate orders as the case may require on the facts
involved therein in accordance with law. [Para 15] [702-G-H]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 469-470 of 2019.
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 700
 700
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.A. No. 49292 of 2018 in Crl. M.C.
No. 2757 of 2018 .
V. K. Sharma, Anil Kumar Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Amit Kumar (for
B. V. Balaram Das), Sonal Jain, Rishabh Raj Jain, Ms. Heena Sharma,
Adv. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
dated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Crl.M.A. No.49292/2018 in Crl.M.C. No.2757/2018 whereby the High
Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these
appeals, which involve a short point.
4. The appellant was a consumer of electricity. He, therefore,
obtained one electricity connection from respondent No. 2 - BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited(hereinafter referred to as "BSES") for his
business premises.
5. Respondent No. 2-BSES sent a bill to the appellant for
consumption of electricity to the tune of Rs. 3,54,598.21 on 22.09.2014.
According to BSES, the appellant had committed theft of electricity and
on it being detected, the bill in question was sent to the appellant.
6. Since the appellant failed to pay the bill amount, the BSES filed
FIR against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") and sought the appellant's prosecution for
commission of theft of electricity under the Act. It was also followed by
notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(hereinafter
referred to as "the Crl.P.C.").
7. The appellant and BSES, however, settled the matter in the
Special Lok Adalat held on 11.02.2018 for a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/-.
An order was accordingly passed by the Lok Adalat on 11.02.2018.
According to the appellant, he has deposited the agreed amount in two
instalments.
 MUKESH CHAND v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
8. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition under Section 482 of
the Crl.P.C. in the High Court of Delhi seeking therein for quashing of
the FIR filed by the BSES against him in relation to the aforementioned
dispute.
9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition, which
has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave in this
Court by the appellant(consumer).
10. Heard Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sonal
Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2-BSES.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant (consumer) referring to
condition(iii) of the order dated 11.02.2018 of the Lok Adalat (Annexure
P-5) contended that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the
parties wherein the BSES has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by
them against the appellant, the FIR and the criminal case filed by BSES
against him has to be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at in
the Lok Adalat.
12. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-BSES
contended that the issue in question has to be decided keeping in view
the requirements of Section 152 of the Act.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and while
setting aside the impugned order remand the case to the High Court for
deciding the petition afresh keeping in view the provisions of the Section
152 of the Act.
14. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG
appearing for respondent No.1, the issue in question needs to be decided
in the light of Section 152 of the Act, which deals with compounding of
offences under the Act.
15. Since we find that the High Court did not examine the issue in
the light of Section 152 of the Act, we consider it proper to remand the
case to the High Court to examine the issue afresh keeping in view the
provisions of Section 152 of the Act and then pass appropriate orders as
the case may require on the facts involved therein in accordance with
law.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals are allowed,
the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the High
Court for deciding the matter afresh as indicated above.
17. We make it clear that having formed an opinion to remand the
case, we have not applied our mind to the merits of the case. The High
Court will, therefore, decide the matter strictly in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any observations made by us in this order.
Ankit Gyan
 Appeals allowed.
 MUKESH CHAND v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]