Delhi District Court
State vs . Kartar Singh on 28 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRAM, MM03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 56/12
U/s : 279/337 IPC
P.S. : J.P. Kalan
State Vs. Kartar Singh
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 196/2
b) Name & address of the : Sunder S/o Sh. Hari Singh
complainant R/o Jhuggi Rawta More Jafar Pur,
New Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Kartar Singh S/o Parhlad Singh
accused R/o VPO Rawta, New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 14.05.2012
offence
e) Offence complained off : under Section 279/337 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 279 IPC
S. 337 IPC compounded
h) Date of such order : 28.02.2014
Date of Institution : 25.04.2013
Final arguments heard on : 28.02.2014
Judgment Pronounced on : 28.02.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
FIR No: 56/12 state v. prahlad singh Page 1/5
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.12 at about 3:30 PM near Rawta Mor, Main Dhansa Najafgarh Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station J.P. Kalan, Delhi, accused Kartar Singh was driving a Tempo Tata 909 bearing NO. DL 1M 3430, rashly and negligently in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so hit against a child namely Tanya passing by the road and caused simple hurt on the person of Tanya.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police challan was filed in the court and copies of the same were supplied to the accused to his satisfaction.
3. On the basis of the challan, charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused on 09.07.2013, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During evidence two formal witnesses had examined, however, matter was compromised between the injured and the accused. Statement of the parties were recorded and offence under Section 338 IPC was compounded with the permission of the court.
4. It is pertinent to note that the injured are the chief witnesses of the prosecution and have already compounded the major offence disclosed in the charge sheet. An issue was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. for stopping the proceedings as nothing fruitful would be achieved. There is possibility of witnesses FIR No: 56/12 state v. prahlad singh Page 2/5 not deposing against the accused or turning hostile. I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. Even more relevant is the description of accident in Asal Tehrir and statement of victim and eye witness. Even otherwise, Sections 279 and 337 of IPC both punished rash and negligent act. The only difference is that in Section 279 IPC there is rashness and negligence which may result in injury and Section 337 IPC is invoked when such an act actually results in an injury being caused. Section 337 IPC has been made compoundable but Section 279 IPC is not compoundable. Perhaps, one reason is that, as far as Section 337 IPC is concerned, there is a determinable victim i.e. injured whereas in offence under Section 279 IPC, there is no determinable injured who can compound the offence. In a recent decision entitled as Adwait Surendra Aatre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Criminal Application no.124 of 2011, whereas Ld. Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held and I quote :
"...Therefore, there is an apprehension in the mind of both, the applicant / accused and complainant, that even by approaching the trial court, they may not be allowed compounding the entire proceeding because of inclusion of Section 279 IPC which is stated to be noncompoundable...
7. After minute reading of both these sections, it is seen that the alleged act of rash and neglient driving, endangering human life, is required to be proved as necessary ingredient to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC and by allegedly doing any act rashly or negligently as to endagering the human life are also the same ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 338 IPC. Therefore, such ingredients which are common, cannot be separately dealt with. The requirement of offence under Section 338 IPC is all that is covered in FIR No: 56/12 state v. prahlad singh Page 3/5 Section 279 of IPC. As specifically mentioned in the Code, when the offence under Section 338 IPC is compoundable, there cannot be any impediment or bar to hold that the alleged offence under Section 279 of IPC read with Section 338 IPC could also be compounded. It is not a different act complained of to constitute a separate offence but are the essential ingredients of section 338 IPC in the present case. In short, the offence under Section 338 IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court, which, amounts to acquittal. After such compounding with the consent of 5 apl 12411. ... the aggrieved party injured complainant, the accused cannot be prosecuted or tried for the same act which are complained of by different title or ead under Section 279 of IPC. Though it may not be a second trial, but hte accused, who is once acquitted from the charge under Section 338 IPC upon compounding of the charge based on thesame evidence, would be vexed, if he is directed to under go further trial under Section 279 for lesser punishment. Thus, by the present application, the applicant has made out a case for compoinding of offence...
...I am satisfied that once the offence under Section 338 IP is compounded, nothing survives for trying the offence under Section 279 IPC. The FIR or Charge sheet for additional Section 279 IPC would be meaningless when the cognizance is taken under Section 338 of IPC. The proceedings for the offence under Section 279 IPC, therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside." (Emphasis supplied)
5. Therefore, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that once injury was received by rash and negligent driving, only Section 338 IPC ought to be invoked i.e. the graver of the two offences and Section 279 IPC is not made out, and therefore, the court quashed proceedings under Section 279 IPC and directed the parties to appear before Ld. Magistrate for compounding the offence under Section 279 IPC.FIR No: 56/12 state v. prahlad singh Page 4/5
6. Ld. APP for State has submitted that the judgment is not laying down correct law and trial for offence under Section 279 IPC must be completed and power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., ought not to be exercised in the present case.
7. The court is also of the view that once offence under Section 338 IPC is compounded continuing the trial for the offence under Section 279 IPC shall be vexing the accused twice. Although, I am not fully in agreement with the view that Section 279 IPC looses its significance once Section 337 IPC is invoked by the police and that Section 337 IPC is not independent but only graver form of the offence under Section 279 IPC. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case the decision of Bombay High Court and the futility of purpose in proceeding with the trial of minor offence when the major offence has already been compounded by the victim, I am of the view that present case is a fit case for exercising power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. I direct that the proceeding in the present case are stopped which shall operate as discharge of the accused.
Dictated & Announced in Open Court (Vikram) On the 28th day of February 2014 MM03/SouthWest/Delhi 28.02.2014 FIR No: 56/12 state v. prahlad singh Page 5/5