2019 Supreme(SC) 885
A.M.SAPRE, R.SUBHASH REDDY
Saleem Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Anil Kumar Gautam, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Sunil Fernandes, Priyansha Indra Sharma, Advocates
Judgement Key Points
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the case Saleem Ahmed vs. State & Anr.:
- Filing of FIR after settlement is unjust and illegal: The Supreme Court held that once a dispute over recovery of an outstanding amount is finally settled amicably in a Lok Adalat, resulting in a full and final satisfaction of the claim, there is no legal basis or occasion to file an FIR against the appellant regarding the same cause. (!) (!)
- Proper remedy lies in challenging the award: The appropriate remedy for parties aggrieved by a Lok Adalat award is to challenge it in an appropriate forum, not to file a criminal complaint. Since the appellant did not challenge the award, the dispute was considered settled. (!)
- Award constitutes full and final settlement: The award dated 27.02.2015 explicitly recorded that the dispute was settled in "full and final satisfaction" of the demand, leaving no subsisting cause of action for the BSES to pursue criminal proceedings. (!) (!)
- Payment was accepted without protest: It is established that the appellant paid the awarded amount in accordance with the terms, and the BSES accepted this payment without any protest, thereby fully satisfying the award. (!)
- No reservation of rights to file FIR in the award: The terms of the Lok Adalat award did not contain any condition granting the BSES the liberty to file an FIR under the Electricity Act despite the settlement. Conversely, the award clearly stated the dispute was settled in full and final satisfaction. (!)
- Section 152 of the Electricity Act empowers compounding: The Court noted that Section 152 of the Electricity Act empowers concerned officers to compound offenses punishable under the Act, which aligns with the settlement reached. (!)
- BSES should have reserved rights if they intended to sue: If the BSES intended to file an FIR, they should have either not settled the matter through Lok Adalat or explicitly reserved their right to file an FIR in the award terms during the settlement process. Since neither was done, the subsequent FIR was impermissible. (!)
- Quashing of FIR: Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order dismissing the petition was set aside, and FIR No. 548/2015 registered against the appellant was quashed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C. No.4476 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.
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. F-11/75 (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 being in occupation of the house was found consuming the electricity supplied by t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
