Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1546 (GAU)

Ratan Sharma v. State of Assam

2017-12-15

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State as well as Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this application under section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR dated 8.12.2016 and Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 269/2016 corresponding to GR No. 550/2016 registered on the basis of such FIR. 3. The respondent No. 2, the Assistant General Manager, Industrial Revenue Collection Area, APDCL lodged an FIR on 8.12.2016, which reads as follows: “To The Officer In-charge Dhaligaon Police Station, Chirang Dist. Chirang (Assam) Sub: FIR against M/s. Satyamegha Industries, Consumer No. 5000738200, Meter No. APC02344. Sir, With reference to the above, I have the honour to inform you that, an agreement for released of new supply of electricity was executed with M/s. Satyamegha Industries, Bengtol Gate, Chirang District, owned by (1) Mr. Mangilal Jalan, S/o Late Rameswar Lai Jalan R/o Anuj Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Bilpar Road, Sarabhatti, Guwahati-781008, (2) Mr. Ratan Sharma, S/o Late Satya Narayan Sharma, R/o Ispat Complex, 6th Floor, N.S. Road, Fatasil, Guwahati-781009, (3) Mr. Purushottam Murarka, S/o Sri Madan Gopal Murarka, Park View Apartment, Flat No. 5A, Nilomoni Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005 with the Chief General Manager (Distribution), Lower Assam Region, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, Bijulee Bhawan, Ghy-1 on 1st day of July, 2011. Since 12.7.2011 as per agreement with that industry, APDCL was supplying energy, but payment of energy charges were very irregular. In this respect several reminders were sent to the said industry. When the outstanding dues reached to Rs. 1,60,97,479 the said industry approached Chief General Manager (Commercial) APDCL, Bijulee Bhawan, Ghy-1, who allowed the prater of said industry to pay in installment basis. Accordingly the said company paid Rs. 40,97,479 on 9.9.2015 as 1st installment but failed to clear next installment amount, that was to be paid in the month of October 15, for which service line was disconnected on 3.11.2015. After that, several notices were served to the consumer for paying remaining outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000.00 but the party did not pay any respect to that. Accumulating surcharge the bill amount reached to Rs. 2,45,15,552 and having no other alternative, the service line of the consumer was dismantled on 2.5.2016. After that, several notices were served to the consumer for paying remaining outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000.00 but the party did not pay any respect to that. Accumulating surcharge the bill amount reached to Rs. 2,45,15,552 and having no other alternative, the service line of the consumer was dismantled on 2.5.2016. It is suspected that the said consumer wants to misappropriate the said amount by way of fraudulent means and cheating for their wrongful gain. Thus, M/s. Satyamegha industries in complete violation of terms of agreement has dishonestly deprived Assam power Distribution Company Ltd. of its rightful energy charges against energy provided to him, causing huge revenue losses to the company. I, therefore, pray that kindly investigate the matter so that APDCL can get back outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,25,28,482 from the consumer. The amount of Rs. 1,25,28,482 is as on 31.10.2016 which may increase with accumulating surcharge. Thanking you. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Soobhan Kr. Saikia) Assistant General Manager Industrial Revenue Collection Area, APDCL (LAZ) Bongaigaon 7086049155.” 4. From the contents of the FIR, it appears that the petitioners were consumers of electricity and there were outstanding dues of Rs. 1,60,97,479 to be paid by the petitioners. As the dues were not paid, the electricity line was disconnected. There was an agreement between the parties to the effect that the outstanding dues shall be paid in installments and pursuant to such agreement the first installment, amounting to Rs. 40,97,479 was paid by the petitioners on 9.9.2015. Thereafter the electricity supply to the premises of the petitioners was again disconnected on 3.11.2015 and ultimately the electricity supply was dismantled on 2.5.2016 for non-payment of electricity charges and the FIR was lodged alleging misappropriation of money. 5. The law relating to quashment of criminal proceeding is well settled by long line of judicial decision of the Apex Court. It is settled proposition that if the allegation made in the FIR or complaint in its face value and accepted in its entirety fails to make out a criminal office, in such case, the proceeding is liable to be quashed, as allowing such proceeding to continue will not serve any purpose of justice. It is settled proposition that if the allegation made in the FIR or complaint in its face value and accepted in its entirety fails to make out a criminal office, in such case, the proceeding is liable to be quashed, as allowing such proceeding to continue will not serve any purpose of justice. In the instant case, apparently the present petitioners were customers of the respondent and allegation in the FIR was that there was outstanding dues, which was not paid because of which electricity connection in the premises of the petitioners was already dismantled. Non-payment of electricity dues or failure to pay the electricity dues, by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a misappropriation, and, therefore, the allegation made in the FIR does not make out any ingredient of the offence of misappropriation. Thus, the allegation made in the FIR having failed to make out, even prima facie any criminal offence allowing the present proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of the process of court. The present FIR in my view is nothing but a pressure tactics on the part of the respondents to settle a civil dispute giving colour of a criminal offence. The allegation made in the FIR appears to be civil in nature, for which the respondent recourse to civil remedy. Since the allegation in the FIR fails to make out any criminal offence, it deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The FIR dated 8.12.2018 and Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 269/2016 arising out of such FIR are quashed. Criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.