BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Shammi Kapoor and Others

Ajit Bharihoke, J.—BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, the Petitioner herein vide this petition has pressed for following prayer:

(i) allow the instant petition and quash the last para of the order dated 7th May, 2008 in criminal complaint Case No. 1054 of 2007 passed by Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and;

(ii) to pass/make any other such other appropriate orders/directions as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the Petitioner company is a licensed power supply company. On 07th August, 2007, a statutory inspection/raid was conducted by the officials of BSES at Flat No. 27-D, Pocket C, Siddharth Extension, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The premises were found occupied by the Respondents Shammi Kapoor, Suraj and Daljeet Singh. The inspection team detected theft/unauthorized use of electricity in the said premises. Accordingly, a supplementary theft bill for ` 66,792/-was raised. Respondents failed to pay the amount of supplementary bill. The Petitioner company was thus constrained to file complaint case No. 1054/2007 in the Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the complaint and adopted summary trial procedure.

During the pendency of trial, the Respondents approached the Petitioner company for settlement/compromise and the Petitioner company, as an act of good faith, considered the request of the Respondents and after discussion, reduced the theft bill amount and allowed the Respondent to pay that amount in instalments. The factum of this proposed settlement was brought to the notice of learned Trial Judge on the next date of hearing and on the payment of the last instalment, the Petitioner intimated the court that it does not wish to proceed with the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as compromised.

It appears that learned Trial Judge took offence to the Petitioner settling the matter with the accused during the pendency of complaint and while directing the Respondents/accused to deposit the settled amount of theft bill so that the case is closed, inter alia, observed thus:

Heard. In the given facts, the complainant is directed not to deal with subject matter of the complaint without permission of the court in any manner whatsoever as it caused harassment to the so called accused and convenience to the complainant in term of finance. Now, it is submitted by the complainant that they will take care in such matters and would keep in touch with the department concerned so that no such inconvenience is caused to the accused persons if (sic) such complaint are withdrawn at the earliest. With the direction in terms of submission made, the file be consigned to record room. A copy of this order be sent to the CEO of the complainant in confidential copy

Petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the court in restraining the Petitioner to enter into out of court settlement of theft bills during the pendency of the complaint and sending of confidential communication to the CEO of the Petitioner company.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner company has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner company is a private sector organization in the business of supply of electricity and its prime concern is to generate profits. The main concern of the Petitioner company in power theft cases is to ensure that the revenue in respect of the power theft is recovered as early as possible, therefore, the Petitioner company is well within its rights to settle the bills raised in respect of power theft even during the pendency of the complaint u/s 135 of the Electricity Act.

Learned Counsel contended that the learned Additional Sessions, if he was of the view that the offence u/s 135 Electricity Act was not compoundable, could have rejected the request of the Petitioner company for withdrawal of the complaint but the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to restrain the Petitioner company from settling the bill amounts after initiating the prosecution of the accused u/s 135 of the Electricity Act.

I find merit in the above submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The object of Section 135 of the Electricity Act is to deter the theft of electricity but at the same time, one cannot ignore that the Petitioner company, who is in the business of supply of electricity has a legal right to recover the revenue in respect of the power theft by raising bill or even by encouraging settlement and such an act on the part of the Petitioner company, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as interference in the judicial proceedings even if there is a complaint u/s 135 of the Electricity Act pending. Thus, in my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court had no jurisdiction to send a communication to the CEO of the Petitioner company to refrain from settling the matter after filing of the complaint u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also seems to have lost sight of the fact that he was exercising criminal jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure and not a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where he could issue such directions or orders. An Additional Sessions Judge presides over a particular jurisdiction and he is bound by rules of procedure and he cannot overstep into the areas which does not concern the jurisdiction being exercised by him. If, on hearing the parties, the Judge was of the view that there was no justification in prayer for withdrawal of the complaint, he could have rejected request of the Petitioner instead of issuing directions to the Petitioner through its CEO.

In view of the aforesaid, I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Malviya Nagar dated 07th May, 2008. The order is accordingly quashed.