( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 248/98 dated 20. 4. 1998; FIR No. 540/99 dated 8. 7. 1999; FIR No. 541/99 dated 8. 7. 1999 all registered under Sections 379, Indian Penal Code and 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under.

( 2 ) ON 12. 4. 1998 the Vigilance Staff of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) raided the premises of petitioner No. 1 and reported to the police about the theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1 from the DVB LV main. The Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No. 248/98 dated 12. 4. 1998 under Sections 379, Indian Penal Code and 39/44 I. E. Act at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by petitioner No. 2.

( 3 ) ON 30. 6. 1999 a joint team raided the premises of petitioner No. 2 (No. 15/ 5, E-Block, Near Madrasi Colony Temple, New Delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity by petitioner No. 2 from the DVB LV main. The Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No. 540/99 dated 30. 6. 1999 under Sections 379, Indian Penal Code and 39/441. E. Act at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner No. 2.

( 4 ) ON 30. 6. 1999 a joint team of enforcement MTD/vigilance/zone Staff/sdm raided the premises of petitioner No. 1 (Micro Stamping, near Madrasi Colony, Khyala, New Delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1 from the DVB LV main. The Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No. 541 /99 dated 30. 6. 1999 under Sections 379, Indian Penal Code and 39/44 I. E. Act at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1.

( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the parties have amicably settled the matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have now deposited the entire amount, therefore, the FIRs filed against them be quashed.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the number of judgments of Division Bench of this Court.

( 7 ) IN Cri. W. P. No. 346/2000 titled as Shiv Bhasin and Ors. v. The State and Anr, decided on 24. 5. 2000, the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S. N. Kapoor J. the Court quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Ms. Swarn Kanta Mehra, M. M. , Delhi as full amount has been paid.

( 8 ) IN Cr. W. P. No. 1189/99 titled as Mahender Kumar and Anr. v. State and Anr. , a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Anil Dev Singh, J. and R. S. Sodhi, J. quashed the FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom as the payment has already been made.

( 9 ) IN Cri. W. P. No. 56/2000 titled as Harish Puri and Ors. v. state and Anr. , decided on 21. 3. 2000, Division Bench of this Court consisting of Usha Mehra, J. and S. N. Kapoor, J. quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings.

( 10 ) IN these writ petitions a Reference has been made to the Office Order dated 16th May, 1996 issued by Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (now Delhi Vidyut Board ). The same is reproduced as under:

"the Special Officer, exercising the powers of DESU/mcd, vide Decision No. 5284/gw/corpn. dated 1st May, 1996 have accorded approval for amendment in the existing tariff so as to limit the period of assessment to four months as against six months in cases of tampering of seals and metering equipment etc. , for pilferage of energy and/or direct theft in cases where FIR has not been lodged (for whatever reasons) and the consumer is willing to pay the assessment bill at the rate and manner provided in the tariff. However, in case the consumer does not come forward and is also not willing to pay the assessed bill immediately, FIR will be lodged beside other actions, including filing of recovery suit of assessment bill for a period of six months as per existing provisions of