Saleem Ahmed vs State

3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

4. The appellant is the owner of the house bearing No. F­11/75 (SF), Khasra No. 2271/4, Malviya Nagar, Khirkee Extn., New Delhi. The appellant let out this house to respondent No. 3 (the name of respondent No.3 was deleted from the array of the parties by this Court order dated 25.04.2019) on monthly rent.

5. On 15.12.2014, the officials of the Enforcement Department of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.­respondent No. 2 herein inspected the electricity meter installed in the aforesaid house and found that the meter was not recording correct reading.

6. On verification, the BSES made assessment in relation to the consumption of the electricity and accordingly sent a bill for theft for Rs. 97,786/­ to the appellant and respondent No. 3 because he 2 being in occupation of the house was found consuming the electricity supplied by the BSES. The case was accordingly registered against the appellant and respondent No.3 being case No. ID ­ RJ 151214SC102 (CRN No. 25201 72444/SAKET)­ PLA No. 1/37/2015.

8. By order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P­2), the case was settled at Rs.83,120/­ against full and final payment of the aforesaid bill of Rs.97,786/­. The appellant accordingly paid Rs.83,120/­ to the BSES in terms of the order dated 27.02.2015 in three equal installments. The order reads as under:

It is further agreed that after deposit of the amount of first two installments, the request of the petitioner for release of a new connection will be processed immediately thereafter and new connection will be released within one week from the date of deposit of the second installment, subject to completion of concerned formalities including deposit of any other outstanding amount against the premises in question.

11. The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed the petition, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way special leave by the appellant in this Court.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order, allow the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code and quash FIR No.548/15.

17. The dispute between the parties, therefore, came to an end for all purposes consequent upon passing of an award except to the extent of recovery of the awarded amount of Rs.83,120/­. It is not in dispute that the appellant paid the awarded amount to the BSES in terms of the award dated 27.02.2015 and the same was also accepted by the BSES without any protest. The award thus stood fully satisfied.

20. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the filing of FIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and illegal and the same was not permissible being against the terms of the award and also for want of any subsisting cause of action arising out of demand. It is, therefore, not legally sustainable.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code by the appellant is allowed and FIR No. 548/2015 registered in PS Malviya Nagar, South Delhi against the appellant is hereby quashed.

August 19, 2019 10