CRL. M.C. 1114/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. M.C. 1114/2010 Decided on 20.07.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : ISHWAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Narayan Singh, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. S. Kohli, APP for the State Mr. J.S. Lamba, Advocate for R2/BSES. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) A short affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 on 22.04.2010, with a copy to the other side. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR no.521/1999 lodged by the respondent No.2/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. with Police Station: Tilak Marg, under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC. It is stated that after the FIR was registered, investigation was carried out and a challan dated 02.10.1999 was filed against the petitioner. The matter is stated to be pending for disposal before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and the next date of hearing is fixed on CRL. M.C. 1114/2010 Page 2 of 3 20.08.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner has also filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent No.2 in the court of Civil Judge, challenging the theft bill raised on him by the respondent No.2. 2. In the meantime, the matter was listed before the Permanent Lok Adalat at the request of the petitioner and it is stated that now the parties have arrived at a settlement as recorded in the order dated 21.12.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer-PLA and placed on record. In the aforesaid order, it was noted by the Lok Adalat that the parties had arrived at a settlement in terms of which, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,61,154/- to the respondent No.2, as full and final payment for the period w.e.f. 12.03.1999 to 24.06.1999. Counsel for the respondent No.2 confirms the aforesaid position and states that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR, lodged by his client against the petitioner. 3. Learned APP, who is present on behalf of the State states that she has no objection to the present petition being allowed. She, however, submits that in view of the fact that the state machinery was put into motion on account of the petitioner, which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, the petition may be allowed with costs. 4. Having regard to the averments made in the petition and in view of the fact that the respondent No.2/complainant has filed an affidavit stating inter alia that the dispute with the petitioner in respect of the bill in question stands settled, in terms of the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 21.12.2000, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom. CRL. M.C. 1114/2010 Page 3 of 3 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.521/1999 lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and all the proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, to be deposited in the Juvenile Justice Fund, within a period of one week. Copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the learned APP for the State within two weeks. 6. The petition is disposed of. (HIMA KOHLI) JULY 20, 2010 JUDGE rkb