Delhi District Court
State vs Raju Varma on 16 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 566/2021
U/s 279/338 IPC
PS: NIA
State vs. Raju Verma S/o Birju Verma
Date of Institution of case:-24.12.2021
Date of Judgment reserved:- 16.01.2026 (at 01:20 pm)
Date on which Judgment pronounced:-16.01.2026 (at 03:30 pm)
JUDGMENT
CIS Number : 11328/2021 Date of Commission : 08.09.2021 of offence Name of the : Satish Kumar Mann complainant Name of the accused : Raju Verma Offence complained : 279/338 IPC of Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of order : 16.01.2026 Final Order : Acquitted FIR No. 566/2021 State Vs. Raju Verma 1 The story of prosecution is as under :
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2021, at about 10:48 pm, at Naya Bans to Holambi Kalan, NIA within the jurisdiction of Police Station NIA, accused was found driving a car bearing registration No. DL4C-AX-1901 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person and hit against a motorcycle bearing no.DL- 11-SE-7544 and caused grievous injuries to complainant Satish Kumar Mann.
According to prosecution, accused committed offences punishable under Section 279/338 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copies of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. Perusal of the record shows that the matter has been compromised between the injured and the accused. Statement of the injured was recorded and offence under Section 338 IPC was compounded with the permission of the court.
FIR No. 566/2021 State Vs. Raju Verma 25. It is pertinent to note that the injured is the chief witness of the prosecution and has already compounded the major offence disclosed in the charge sheet. An issue has been 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 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 338 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 338 IPC is invoked when such an act actually results in an injury being caused. Section 338 IPC has been made compoundable but Section 279 IPC is not compoundable. Perhaps, one reason is that, as far as Section 279 IPC is concerned, there is a determinable victim i.e. 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, wherein 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 non Compoundable...
7. After minute reading of both these sections, it is seen that the alleged act of rash and negligent 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 endangering the human life are also the same ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 338 IPC. Therefore, such ingredients which are common, cannot be FIR No. 566/2021 State Vs. Raju Verma 3 separately dealt with. The requirement of offence under Section 338 IPC is all that is covered in 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 12401... the aggrieved party injured complainant, the accused cannot be prosecuted or tried for the same act which are complained of by different title or read under Section 279 of IPC. Though it may not be a second trial, but the accused, who is once acquitted from the charge under Section 338 IPC upon compounding of the charge based on the same 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 compounding of offence...
...I am satisfied that once the offence under Section 338 IPC 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)
6. 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. 566/2021 State Vs. Raju Verma 47. 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.
8. 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 a futile exercise. Although, I am not fully in agreement with the view that Section 279 IPC looses its significance once Section 338 IPC is invoked by the police and that Section 338 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.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed Announced and dictated directly JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: 2026.01.16 into the computer in open court NAIN 17:52:43 +0530 on 16th Day of January, 2026 (Jyoti Nain) Judicial Magistrate First Class-07 North District, Rohini Court/Delhi FIR No. 566/2021 State Vs. Raju Verma 5