Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. M.C. No. 2712/2008 & Crl. M.A. 9989/2008 % DATE OF DECISION : 22nd AUGUST, 2008 MOOL CHAND CHAWLA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anilendra Pandey with Ms. Priya Kashyap and Manoj Kumar, Advocates. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….Respondent Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State. Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Standing Counsel for BSES. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 119/99 registered with PS Karol Bagh under Sections 39, 44 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section of 379 IPC as well as chargesheet dated 2nd July, 1999 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and now pending in the Court of Mr. Kuldeep Narayan, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Page 2 of 2 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 7th April, 1999 a joint team of Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter referred to as DVB) conducted a raid on the Petitioner’s premises and allegedly found him guilty of theft of electricity. On a complaint being filed by the officer of DVB, the impugned FIR was registered. 3. However, on a bill being raised by the Enforcement Department, the Petitioner paid the entire amount including the penalty amount. Consequently, on 11th May, 1999 the Executive Engineer (D), SRD wrote a letter to SHO, Police Station Karol Bagh stating that no further action need be taken in the aforesaid FIR in view of the payment having been made by the Petitioner of the aforesaid bill. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the BSES, who is the successor of DVB, states that his client has no objection if the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed by this Court. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the entire payment including the penalty amount has already been paid by the Petitioner, I see no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings and, therefore, I quash the FIR No. 119/99 registered with PS Karol Bagh under Sections 39, 44 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of IPC as well as chargesheet and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom and now pending in the court of Mr. Kuldeep Narain, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed in above terms. Order dasti. August 22, 2008 MANMOHAN, J. rn