1. Quashing of FIR for electricity theft under Electricity Act, 2003, on ground of settlement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Dharam Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 8068/2025 | CRL.M.A. 33682-33683/2025
Important Points
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is predominantly civil or commercial in nature and an amicable settlement has been reached, ensuring the ends of justice are met without affecting public interest.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482, S.320
Electricity Act, 2003: S.135, S.138, S.150
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482, S.320
Electricity Act, 2003: S.135, S.138, S.150
Headnote
(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Settlement between parties - Inherent powers of High Court under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) - Where criminal proceedings predominantly bear a civil or commercial flavour and the parties have amicably settled, the court may quash the FIR to secure the ends of justice, even if the offences are not compoundable, provided no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 9, 10, 11)
(B) Electricity Act - Theft of Electricity - Commercial Nature of Dispute - Offences under Sections 135, 138, and 150 of the Electricity Act, involving recovery of assessed dues and settled via a "No Dues Certificate," are predominantly civil in nature; continuation of such proceedings after settlement is an exercise in futility. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for electricity theft can be quashed based on a settlement between the accused and the electricity distribution company.
(B) Electricity Act - Theft of Electricity - Commercial Nature of Dispute - Offences under Sections 135, 138, and 150 of the Electricity Act, involving recovery of assessed dues and settled via a "No Dues Certificate," are predominantly civil in nature; continuation of such proceedings after settlement is an exercise in futility. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for electricity theft can be quashed based on a settlement between the accused and the electricity distribution company.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- energy and utilities law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harshvardhan Pandey, Shivek Rai Kapoor, Deepanshu Khanna
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Sanjeev Trivedi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harshvardhan Pandey, Shivek Rai Kapoor, Deepanshu Khanna
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Sanjeev Trivedi
Table of Contents
2. Dispute is civil arising from electricity assessment; settlement reached and no dues remain outstanding. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Offences arising from commercial liability are civil in nature; settlement makes conviction remote and bleak. (Para 11 )
4. High Court may quash criminal proceedings on settlement even for non-compoundable offences when no public interest is affected. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences be quashed on the basis of a settlement?
Yes, High Court may quash such proceedings in exercise of inherent power when the dispute is civil in nature and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What factors guide the High Court in quashing proceedings on settlement?
Guiding factors are securing ends of justice and preventing abuse of process; cases with civil flavour like commercial disputes are suitable for quashing. (Para 10 )
8. Are offences under the Electricity Act, 2003, considered civil or criminal in nature for quashing purposes?
Offences under Sections 135/138/150 of the Electricity Act arising from assessed dues are predominantly civil in nature and suitable for quashing on settlement. (Para 11 )
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 270/2019 dated 31.08.2019, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 135/138/ 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003, [“Electricity Act”] and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an inspection was conducted on 12.06.2019 by a team of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. [“BSES”], at premises IX/5249, Old Seelampur, Shahdara, Delhi. During inspection, the accused persons were allegedly found indulging in direct theft of electricity by illegally tapping the service cable, despite a meter being installed at the site. The connected load of 9.040 KW was found being used for non-domestic purposes through unauthorized means. It is alleged that accused Karamveer and Nazar Mohd. were committing theft, while the petitioner, being the registered consumer, abetted the offence. A complaint was lodged on 31.07.2019 on the basis of which the subject FIR was registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar on 31.08.2019.
3. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 25.08.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of an electricity assessment. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their disputes before the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Special Lok Adalat, vide settlement dated 25.08.2019 for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-, which has been duly paid by the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 has issued a “No Dues Certificate” dated 16.01.2020 acknowledging receipt of the entire settlement amount, thereby confirming that no civil liability survives.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 does not dispute the settlement and confirms that the entire settled amount has been received and no dues remain outstanding. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the present FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
6. The petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. An Authorised Officer of BSES is also present in person and is identified by learned counsel for BSES and the IO.
7. Although Sections 135/138/150 of the Electricity Act are compoundable offences, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to compound the offence but seeks quashing of the proceedings in their entirety. Learned counsel for BSES confirms the issuance of the No Dues Certificate and submits that the entire civil liability stands satisfied and BSES has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR and consequential proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.
10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1(2012) 10 SCC 303. has held as follows:
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace i
