( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of the cr. P. C. for quashing of the FIR No. 896/99 registered at P. S. Mangol Puri under Section 39 and 44 of the indian Electricity Act (in short the Act) read with section 379 of the IPC and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, pending before the court of the metropolitan Magistrate.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that a joint team of the respondent/dvb conducted raid on the premises of the petitioner M/s Gopal Plastics at Mangol Pur Khurd on 14. 10. 1999 and detected fraudulent abstraction of the electricity from electricity connection bearing k. No. 146809 installed in the premises in the name of daya Chand. As per report of the joint inspection team the theft of electrical energy was being committed by "tampering the metering equipment by insertion of thin plastic film to stop movement of meter disc". On the complaint made by the by DVB/respodnent on 14. 10. 1999 the FIR no. 896/99 was registered at P. S. Mangol Puri for offences under Section 39 and 44 of the Act read with section 379 of IPC.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has alleged in the petition that the complaint which resulted in the registration of the case was lodged In contravention of the guidelines embodied In the Circular No. CO. II/p-25/96-97/58 dated 26. 2. 1997. These guidelines mandated the officials of the DVB, after the inspection of the premises of the consumer was carried out to raise a theft electricity bill at appropriate tariff rate and lodge the report for registration of the case with the police only after the consumer has failed to deposit the electricity bill within the stipulated time. In the instant case it is contended that the complaint was made on 14. 10. 1999 soon after the inspection was carried out by the joint inspection team without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the electricity bill raised by the dvb on the appropriate tariff rate applicable to the theft cases. It is also contended that the dispute about the electricity bill raised by the DVB subsequent to the registration of the case was settled by permanent Lok Adalat on 14. 2. 2001 and the petitioner in accordance with this settlement has paid the revised electricity bill in January, 2000. It is alleged that the petitioner now has no pending liability on the basis of the inspection carried out on 14. 10. 1999 and the FIR is liable to be quashed in the light of the judgment of this court and the Supreme Court.

( 4 ) ON 22. 5. 2002 when the matter was heard, this court observed that the FIR and criminal proceedings in question cannot be quashed in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Gurcharan Singh bhawnani Vs. State and Another 94 (2001)DLT 813 (FB ). Counsel for petitioners took time to examine the judgment of the Full Bench and the question of law involved. Now counsel for petitioner has relied upon heavily on the judgment of Single Bench of this court in Purshotam Lal Gupta Vs. State and Anr. 97 (2002) DLT 917 wherein a learned Single Judge after referring to the Circular dated 16. 5. 1996 has held that lodging of the complaint before giving an opportunity to the consumer to make the payment of the electricity bill raised as per the tariff applicable to the theft cases would be contravention of Section 50 of the Act and so would be liable to be quashed in the light of the. guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , 1992 supp. (1)SCC 335. The counsel has also referred to another judgment of this court in P. N. Kohli and Anr. Vs. State and Anr. 88 (2000)DLT 852 wherein another bench of this court had taken a similar view. The parties in that case had amicably settled their matter before a Lok Adalat and the consumer had deposited the entire amount of the theft bill and had prayed for quashing of FIR.

( 5 ) IN the instant case also the petitioner has relied upon the guidelines for processing of theft of energy and fraudulent a