CRL.M.C.No.2492/2008 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No.2492/2008 % Date of decision : 04.08.2008 Rajesh Kumar @ Babli ….… Petitioner Through: Mr.Gagan Kr. Srivastava, Advocate. Versus The State of Delhi & Another ......... Respondents Through : Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State. Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * Issue notice to the respondent. Mr.Vats and Mr.Gupta accept notices on b ehalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of the assessed bill of Rs.12,833/- has been deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the amount of the disputed bill has since been deposited and he has instruction not to oppose the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. CRL.M.C.No.2492/2008 Page 2 of 2 660/2001under Sections 39, 44 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC. Learned counsel for the parties states that it shall also be in the interest of justice if the said FIR is quashed. Consequently, in the totality of facts and circumstances the FIR No. 660/2001under Sections 39 & 44 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of. August 04, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’