$~9&10 (common order)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on:- 22^nd November, 2018

+

CRL.M.C. 3258/2016 and Crl.M.A.13911/2016

+

CRL.M.C. 3298/2016 and Crl.M.A.14031/2016

JAI PRAKASH SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ajit Rajput, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP

for the State

Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. for

R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

ORDER (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner claims to have been appointed in 1984, on the

basis of a selection process of Union Public Service Commission

(UPSC) to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) in erstwhile Delhi

Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU), at times when it was statedly

a

department of

Municipal

Corporation of

Delhi (MCD).

Subsequently, DESU was re-established as an entity under the Govt.

of NCT of Delhi and restyled as Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) in 1997

and the petitioner continued to serve in said department. Pursuant to

enactment of Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, notified on

06.03.2001, five power distribution companies having been

established by the government, the services of the petitioner were

statedly transferred to one of them, named, Central East Delhi

Electricity Supply Company Limited, such transfer of services being

subject-matter of a tripartite agreement. The power distribution

companies were also re-structured over the period and concededly

services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the BSES

Yamuna Power Company Limited.

2.

During the relevant period, the petitioner was working as

Deputy General Manager (DGM) in BSES, wherein the second

respondent had been employed (on 01.03.2005) as circle coordinator,

the duties entrusted to him being to supervise the replacement of

electric meters as against mechanical meters, through electricians

engaged by private contractors. On 18.03.2008, the petitioner lodged

complaint with Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of North-East

Delhi District about certain acts of commission or omission on the part

of the second respondent, this becoming subject-matter of a criminal

case (FIR), which statedly was decided by the court of Additional

Sessions Judge (special court under Electricity Act) on 21.07.2010,

discharging the second respondent from the accusations of offences

under Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 408 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3.

The second respondent presented a criminal complaint dated

10.02.2011 in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

(ACMM) seeking prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under

Section 500 IPC, primarily on the submission that, by lodging a false

complaint, it being with mala fide intention, the petitioner had caused

great harassment and financial loss to him, such acts having “ruined”

his reputation in the society.

4.

The metropolitan magistrate, after inquiry, found prima facie

case to be made out and, thus, by her order dated 10.08.2011 issued

summons to the petitioner calling him up to be answerable on the

accusations for offence under Section 500 IPC. The said criminal

complaint case (later registered as CC No.1175/1/2012) is pending on

the file of the metropolitan magistrate.

5.

After appearing before the court of metropolitan magistrate, the

petitioner made an application seeking discharge on the ground, that

his prosecution was impermissible in absence of sanction under

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), he

being a “public servant” entitled to the protection of law, the acts of

commission or omission attributed to him having been undertaken in

discharge of his official duties. The application was dismissed by the

metropolitan magistrate, by order dated 05.08.2013, rejecting the

contention, on the basis of oral submission, that the petitioner

(accused) could be treated as a public servant and entitled to the

protection