It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is
a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity
cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of
the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the
electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the
applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the
premises in question.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2022
DILIP(DEAD) Vs SATISH & OTHERS
Author: INDIRA BANERJEE J.
Dated: MAY 13, 2022
Leave granted.
No one has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in
spite of notice. The Respondent-State has appeared through the
learned standing counsel.
This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated
21.06.2019 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay allowing Criminal Application No. 215 of 2019
and quashing the FIR No. 394/2018 filed by the appellant, arraying
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as accused.
The Appellant is the owner of House No. 463 situated at Darzi
Bazar, Bhazi Market Road, Cantonment, Aurangabad, Maharashtra,
which is hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”. The
father of the Respondent No. 1 was inducted as a tenant of a shop
at the said premises. In 1984, the appellant and his family
members filed a suit for eviction. While the said suit was
pending, the appellant along with his mother inherited the said
premises.
It is not necessary for this Court to go into the details of
how the ownership of the said premises devolved on the Appellant.
Suffice it to mention that the Respondent No. 1 and his mother
filed a petition under Section 17 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act
in the Court of the Rent Controller, Aurangabad, seeking directions
on the Appellant to provide electricity connection at the said
shop.
The application was rejected on the ground that from the
inception of the tenancy the said shop was run with a petromax.
Electricity had never been provided. The Respondent No. 2 later
applied for supply of electricity in his own name on the basis of a
“No Objection” letter dated 15.07.2006 and got supply of
electricity to the said shop in his own name.
It is the case of the Appellant that the no objection letter
had been fabricated and the signatures thereon of Shantilal
Maniklal Jaiswal, brother of the Appellant had been forged by
Respondent No. 1. An FIR was lodged, the relevant portions of
which are extracted hereinbelow :-
“***********
8. Thereafter on 3/12/2018 the Deputy Executive Engineer of
Maharashtra State Electricity Board had taken action about
taken illegal electric connection and disconnected the
electric connection taken from Pavan Jaiswal in House No.
484 and this was intimated to the complainant by their
letter dated 4/12/2004. The complainant was also intimated
that Pavan has assured that henceforth he would not supply
electricity after pay Rs. 25/- for reconnection the
electricity was again started. This copy is annexed on
Exhibit-G.
9. The complainant had a doubt that the accused is attempting
to file application to Maharashtra State Electricity Board
for getting new electric connection. Hence to prevent
giving electric connection he raised objection on the
application of the accused and filed his application. Copy
of the said objection application is annexed on Exhibit-H.
10. In August 2006 the complainant came to know that when all
attempts of the accused No. 1 for getting illegally the
electric connection were failed, the accused No. 1 has
illegally obtained new electric connection. In this regard
when the complainant made inquiry with Maharashtra State
Electricity Board, the complainant named Shantilal Maniklal
Jaiswal and submitted to Maharashtra Stat Electricity Board
on 1/8/2006 and on that basis new connection was given to
him.
11. No sooner the complainant came to know about the illegal act
of the accused he filed application with Maharashtra Sate
Electricity Board on 9/8/2006 under Right to Information Act
for getting concerned papers to find out as to how the new
connection was received. Accordingly it was informed that
with the held of Accused No. 4 for Maharashtra State
Electricity Board with the help of Vendor Sayyed Shafi
(accused No 3) on 15/7/2006 stamp paper of Rs. 20/- was
purchased on which fake signature of Shantilal Maniklal
Jaiswal was made and fake No Objection Letter was prepared.
It was notarized from the Notary Advocate M.P. Varkat
(Accused No. 4) License No. 665. The complainant also
noticed that the stamp paper was purchased from the Accused
No 4 Sayyed Shafi and on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/- the
accused No. 1 prepared agreement on which after making
signature it was mentioned that after taking the electric
connection if anything illegal is observed the Maharashtra
State Electricity Board would full authorized to disconnect
the same. In this way the same was notarized by Notary
Advocate M.P. Varkad (accused No. 4). Along with all paper
got by the complainant the fake No Objection Letter prepared
on bond paper is also annexed on Exhibit-I.
12. Thereafter immediately on 12/8/2006 and on 14/8/2006 the
complainant and his brother Shantilal Maniklal Jaiwal filed
complaint with the office of Maharashtra Sate Electricity
Board and Cantonment Police Station as well as with Police
Commissioner against the illegal act committed by accused
No. 1 requesting therein that requisite legal action is to
be taken against all participants of this illegal act; but
so far no any action has not been taken against the accused
persons. Copy is annexed on Exhibit-J.
13. As the police did not take any action against the accused
hence on 29/8/2006 brother of the complainant Shantilal
Maniklal Jaiswal filed complaint against the accused No. 1
at Cantonment Police Station, Police Commissioner and
Cantonment Aurangabad; but till today no any action has been
taken by them against the accused. Copy of the said
complaint dated 29/8/2006 is annexed on Exhibit-C.
14. On 4/6/2006 was the Democracy Day on which the complainant
has filed application No 1185 in the office of District
Collector, Aurangabad. Accordingly on 4/9/2006 as per the
order letter No 443 of District Collector Maharashtra State
Electricity Board was ordered to take action against the
accused. Thereafter on 1/11/2006 vide letter No 5125
Maharashtra State Electricity Board informed the complainant
that the papers of No Objection Letter have been given to
Cantonment Police Station. It was also informed that if the
said bond is found as fake the electric connection would be
disconnected. Copy of this letter dated 1/11/2006 with
application is on Exhibit-L.
15. The complainant knew that against the accused on the
complaint of the complainant police did not take any action.
Hence on 3/9/2016 the complainant filed last complaint to
the police officer; but they said that they would not be
able to take any action on the complaint of the complainant
and asked him to file complaint with Maharashtra State
Electricity Board.
16. Hence on 15/9/2016 the complainant filed complaint before
Maharashtra State Electricity Board and requested them to
take necessary action; but they did not take any action
against the accused. This complaint is annexed on Exhibit-
N.
17. On 14/3/2017 again the complainant made complaintsat
Maharashtra State Electricity Board for taking necessary
action against the accused; but no action, was taken. The
complaint dated 14/3/2017 is annexed on Exhibit-O.
18. On 18/3/2017 regarding complaint of the complainant the
Superintending Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity
Board sent a letter to the Executive Engineer and ordered
that as per the Company rules necessary action is to be
taken and its report is to be submitted to their Department.
This application is annexed on Exhibit-P.
19. As per the letter dated 18/3/2017 of Superintending Engineer
of Maharashtra State Electricity Board the Executive
Engineer did not take any action and did not submit their
report. Hence on 27/6/2017 the Superintending Engineer sent
letter to the Executive Engineer and called their
explanation ordering that as per the Company rules the
inquiry is to be made and report is to be submitted. This
letter dated 27/6/2017 is annexed on Exhibit-O.
20. The Executive Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity
Board did not take any action. Hence again on 19/12/2017,
30/12/2017, 4/1/2018 the complainant gave written complaints
to the Senior Officers of Maharashtra State Electricity
Board; but till today no any action has been taken against
the accused and the complainant has not been informed by any
letter. These complaints are annexed on Exhibit-R. In this
regard no any action was taken and the complainant was no at
all informed. These complainants are annexed on Exhibit-5.
21. It is the fact that brother of the complainant Shantilal
Maniklal Jaiswal did not purchase any bond from the accused
and never given in writing the No Objection Letter to the
accused. Hence in this matter there is need of detailed
inquiry.
22. The accused made fake signature of brother of complainant
named Shantilal Maniklal Jaiswal and prepared fake bond of
No Objection and with an intention of causing deception to
the complainant taken electric connection from Maharashtra
State Electricity Board. However, Maharashtra State
Electricity Board has taken criminal action against the
accused.”
As observed above, the said FIR has been quashed by the High
Court by the judgment and order impugned in this special leave
petition. The High Court held as hereunder :-
“4) It is not disputed that applicant No. 1 has obtained the
connection of electricity. The submissions made show that
applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a
saloon shop. It is clear that he needs electricity for doing
this business, but the first informant was not giving no
objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant
No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It
is not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement
between him and landlord, the landlord, the landlord is bound to
supply the electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no
objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the
tenant is authorised. There is no other purpose behind
obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot
prevent the tenant from availing such facility at his own cost.
5) The aforesaid circumstances need to be kept in mind and
then the definition of forgery, cheating, etc. given in the IPC
needs to be seen. It cannot be said in the present matter that
false record if any created has caused any harm to the property
or person of the first informant. In view of this circumstance,
it cannot be said that applicant No. 1 or his associate
committed aforesaid offences by taking connection of electricity
on the basis of such no objection certificate. This Court holds
that it will be misuse of process of law if the applicants are
directed to face the trial for aforesaid offences. In the
result, the application is allowed. The relief is granted to
the applicants in terms of prayer caluse ‘B’. Rule is made
absolute in those terms.”
It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is
a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity
cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of
the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the
electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the
applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the
premises in question.
Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in
quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fabrication and/or
creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute
an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court completely
overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set
aside.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
It is however made clear that electricity supply granted,
shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents
of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the
electricity department including payment of charges for the same.
……………………………………………. J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
……………………………………………. J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2022
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment