Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 885
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Saleem Ahmed – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1244 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8801 of 2018)
Decided On : 19-08-2019
For the Petitioner(s):Anil Kumar Gautam, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Sunil Fernandes, Priyansha Indra Sharma, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Filing of FIR after settlement of dispute in unjust and illegal.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 r/w Section 152, Electricity Act, 2013 - Dispute in relation to recovery of outstanding amount finally settled and paid - No occasion or basis for BSES to file the FIR - Instead of filing FIR, remedy to BSES was to challenge award in appropriate forum - Not done - Award not giving liberty to BSES to file FIR - Filing of FIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat wholly unjust and illegal and not permissible. (Para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant let out this house to respondent No. 3 on monthly rent.
The officials of the Enforcement Department of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. inspected the electricity meter installed in the aforesaid house and found that the meter was not recording correct reading.
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 the BSES.
Then the BSES organized one Permanent Lok AdalatI in Lower Courts at Delhi under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to settle their several recovery cases. The appellant's case was also fixed for settlement.
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 in three equal installments.
Despite settlement of the case and receiving the payment, the BSES filed FIR No.548/15 against the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
Filing of FIR was wholly unjust and illegal.
Result: Appeal allowed.
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 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.
7. On 27.02.2015, the BSES organized one Permanent Lok AdalatI in Lower Courts at Delhi under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to settle their several recovery cases. The appellant's case was also fixed for settlement.
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:
“In this case, the petitioner had approached this Court for settlement with regard to DT bill amounting to Rs.97,786/- based on inspection dated 15.12.2004. A proposal for settlement was given on behalf of the petitioner, which was duly recorded in the Order dated 13.02.2015.
Sh. Rajesh Arora submits that after examining this proposal, the competent authority has agreed to settle this bill for a sum of Rs.83,120/-. This offer has now been accepted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is now agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.83,120/- in full and final settlement against the impugned bill of Rs.97,786/-. It is further agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall deposit the said amount of Rs.83,120/- in three equal installments. The amount of the first installment shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 09.03.2015, the amount of second installment on or before 30.03.2015 and the amount of third installment, on or before 30.04.2015. The said amount will be deposited at Andrews Ganj office. It is further agreed that in case the petitioner defaults in making the payment of any of the installments, he shall be liable to make the payment of the full amount of the impugned bill forthwith.
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.
With this order, the dispute between the parties stands settled amicably. The said settlement has been recorded without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.
Parties are directed to sign this order of settlement. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties for compliance.”
9. Despite settlement of the case and receiving the payment, the BSES filed FIR No.548/15 against the appellant
