Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 341 (DEL)

VIKAS KAPOOR v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE

2007-02-19

REVA KHETRAPAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Reva Khetrapal, J.-Status report has been filed by Mr. Akshai Malik, Counsel for the State and a copy given to Counsel for the petitioner. 2. According to the status report, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Vikas Kapoor, son of late Shri G.L Kapoor is the owner of property bearing No. 11018, Gali Peepal Wali, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-II 0006. A team of BSES Yamuna Power Limited conducted a raid the above said premises on 4.9.2006 resulting in the registration of FIR No. 376/2006 on 24th December, 2006 at Police Station Sadar Bazar under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. Following registration of the above said FIR, one Shri Ashok tenant of the petitioner was arrested on 29th December, 2006 and was later on released on bail on 5th February, 2007 after he had deposited the bail amount of Rs. one lakh against the bill amount of Rs. 10 lakh as a condition for the grant of bail. 3. According to the status report, apart from property No. 11018, property No. 11020 in the same colony, adjoining that of the petitioner, was also raided and a bill of Rs. 74 lakh was raised against the said property in the name of the petitioner. As a sequel to the raid, an FIR bearing No.3 73/2006 was got registered on 23.12.2006 against the petitioner, Shri Vikas Kapoor. In the course of the investigation, however, it was revealed that the owner of the property was not the petitioner, but one Tinu @ Raja, son of Shri Suraj Bhan, who had been residing there for the last eight years and that the petitioner had never resided in the said property, viz., the property No. 11020, Gali Peepalwali, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. In the course of investigation also, the version of four of the occupants, being tenants in the said property, was also recorded, which confirmed that the petitioner was neither the owner nor the occupant of the said property and, as such, was not liable for the bill raised by the respondent No.3. It was also revealed that the petitioner was presently residing at B6, 220-221, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. It was also revealed that the petitioner was presently residing at B6, 220-221, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. Moreover, the owner of the property bearing 11020, Gali Peepalwali, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, namely, Tinu @ Raja, son of Shri Suraj Bhan, gave a statement that the said property belonged to him, and that though the electricity department had raised bill of Rs. 7 4 lakh in the name of the petitioner, he does not have any tenant by the name of Vikas Kapoor, the petitioner herein. He also produced copies of the bills which were raised in his name, in the name of Tinu @ Raja. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the above status report filed by the State, submits that in view of the aforesaid facts garnered in the course of the investigation, no case is made out against the petitioner in relation to the electricity bill with regard to property bearing No. 11020, Gali Peepalwali, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. This is affirmed by learned Counsel for the State and indeed is borne out by the status report itself. Learned Counsel for the State also submits that the aforesaid position will be clarified by the investigating agency in the charge-sheet to be filed before the Trial Court in case FIR No. 376/2006. 5. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the State, nothing further remains to be considered in the present writ petition. Before parting with the case, however, the casual and cavalier manner in which the BSES Yamuna Power Limited (the complainant herein) is dealing with the matter of electricity thefts, resulting in registration of cases against innocent citizens deserves to be condemned by this Court and indeed this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not deprecate the same. In the instant case, the petitioner without any fault of his was faced with a First Information Report and the probability of arrest, which naturally must have resulted in considerable anguish to him (apart from expense and harassment). It is accordingly enjoined upon the BSES Yamuna Power Limited to exercise due care and caution in the matter of registration of their complaints in respect of electricity thefts, so as to ensure initiation of proceedings only against wrong-doers and to avoid undue harassment to innocent citizens. 6. It is accordingly enjoined upon the BSES Yamuna Power Limited to exercise due care and caution in the matter of registration of their complaints in respect of electricity thefts, so as to ensure initiation of proceedings only against wrong-doers and to avoid undue harassment to innocent citizens. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid by the BSES Yamuna Power Limited (respondent No.3) to the petitioner. Writ Petition disposed of.