The stern words of caution came while the court of Additional District Judge (ADJ) Kamini Lau slapped a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on North Delhi Power Limited (NDPL) in one such case. ADJ Lau held that indulging in such practices were “actionable wrong”, as registration of an FIR inflicts grave damages in a person’s private, professional and social life.

ADJ Lau observed that lodging an FIR should be the last resort and not the preferred mode and asked discoms to properly analyse facts and base their findings on substantial material before setting criminal law into motion. “It is time that discoms realise that registration of FIR against any consumer plays havoc in his personal, professional and social life,” the court held.

“Criminal prosecution should be the last resort. It is also obligatory upon the court to ensure that discoms do not subject consumers to extortion by registration of FIR.”

ADJ Lau said before launching a criminal case, a company must keep in mind the implications it could have on an individual’s life. “Instituting criminal proceedings without any reasonable cause is likely to give three kinds of damages: to a person’s reputation, to his person (mental and physical harassment), and to his property (finances).” The court said a consumer in such a scenario would have to spend money to get legal aid and clear his/her name.

The court also observed that levelling criminal charges “unnecessarily and naturally defamatory” would open up a chance for the aggrieved person to claim compensation on account of mental harassment and damages to his goodwill. The other party (discom in this case) would have to shell out the compensation for “intentionally interfering” with the consumer’s person and property, ADJ Lau held.

A 6-year fight

In the present case, NDPL officials had in December 1989 got an FIR registered against Balak Ram Luthra, contending that he got power illegally to run his plastic-manufacturing unit in the city’s Rampura area. After repeated requests saw no result, Luthra approached the NDPL general manager, and a subsequent report negated earlier claims of electricity theft.

Five years hooked into the legal wrangle, the company accepted before the magistrate its fault and Luthra was discharged. But he filed another suit before a civil court to prevent disconnection and payment of inflated bill.

As per Luthra’s petition, tired of protracted litigation and other administrative hurdles, he shut down his unit. The petition said the impugned meters were removed from his premises in 1995 after he complied with conditions of the discom.

Alleging foul play, Luthra then moved court seeking compensation for mental agony due to loss of reputation and closure of his business.

Defending itself, NDPL admitted that lodging an FIR was wrong but refused to pay compensation saying there was no malice or wrongful intent to implicate Luthra in a criminal case.

ADJ Lau, however, refused to buy the argument: “It is a fundamental principle of law that mistake, however honest or inevitable, is no defence for a party who intentionally interferes with the person or property of another.”

Slamming NDPL for entangling an innocent consumer to a criminal litigation for almost six years further leading to tearing down his public image, the court directed the discom to pay him the compensation.