JAI PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(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.