Delhi High Court - Orders
Rohit Kumar Gupta And Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 22 July, 2022
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1867/2022
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: ASI Gautam Soni, PS Bawana
Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State
Mr. Himanshu & Ms. Karishma
Girsay, Advs. for Respondent no. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 22.07.2022
1. On 12.12.2020, FIR No. 716/2020 under Section 287/304A of IPC was lodged at Police Station Bawana, on a complaint by Respondent no. 2. Complainant alleged that her husband who used to work as a labourer with P.W.D. Contractor, Rohit Kumar Gupta (Petitioner no. 1), died due to negligence of Petitioner no. 1. It is alleged that her husband Rakesh used to work as a mason and on 12.12.2020, he refused to work on a mixture machine as he was not well versed with the functioning of the said machine. It is claimed that while working on the said machine, her husband got an electric shock which lead to his death on 12.12.2020.
2. The present petition is filed jointly on behalf of the petitioners and Complainant / Respondent no. 2 claiming that the complainant has settled Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53 the matter with the petitioners without any force, pressure, undue influence or coercion. In terms of the settlement, the petitioners have agreed to pay a compensation of ₹5 lacs. It is stated that both the parties have decided to settle their dispute and are requesting this Court for quashing of the FIR No.716/2020 and all consequential proceedings therefrom.
3. On 19.05.2022, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had sought permission to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased as party to the petition and had also sought time to re-negotiate and finalize the settlement with all the legal heirs.
4. Today an amended memo of parties has been filed wherein Respondent no. 3 to 6 have been arrayed as respondents. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are three minor children of the deceased and Respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 6 is the mother of the deceased.
5. In terms of the fresh settlement, the petitioner has agreed to increase the compensation from ₹5 lacs to ₹7.5 lacs. Out of the said amount, ₹1 lac in cash had already been paid to Respondent no. 2 at the time of cremation of the deceased and the remaining amount has been paid in the manner mentioned in the settlement deed dated 18.07.2022 filed before this Court today.
6. The amended memo of parties, fresh settlement deed and other documents filed today are taken on record.
7. The parties are present in person and state that they have settled all their disputes amicably, without any coercion or pressure.
8. The counsel representing Respondent no. 2 state that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 2 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:539. The parties are present and have been duly identified by the IO. They state that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not have any objection if the proceedings are quashed. ASI Gautam Soni, IO in the present case also states that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.
10. Section 287 and 304A IPC are non compoundable.
11. It is well settled that the High Court in exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.PC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, however, the Supreme Court had laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 3 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
12. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 4 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53 precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 5 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53 involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
13. The present case relates to an offence under Section 304A of IPC where a person has died due to alleged negligence of the accused person.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 6 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53Thus, while deciding whether proceedings relating to such an offence can be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the accused and family of the victim, it is necessary to consider whether it is probable that the presented facts would constitute gross negligence and an element of mens rea, which is required for the purpose of conviction.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, while interpreting as to what constitutes a negligent act to constitute an offence under Section 304A of IPC held that gross negligence and an element of mens rea must be shown to exist. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"48. We sum up our conclusions as under:
...(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution.
(6) The word "gross" has not been used in Section 304A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be "gross".
The expression "rash or negligent act" as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word "grossly"..."
15. From the facts of the present case, it is seen that the deceased was involved in manual labour and was working as a mason. There does not appear to be much material to establish that the contractor was carrying on the work in a manner that could be termed as dangerous or grossly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 7 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53 negligent. The accident appears to have occurred during the course of work being performed by the deceased. Given the fact that the complainant and other family members of the deceased have already settled with the petitioner, it would be improbable to secure a conviction in the facts of the present case. This Court is, thus, of the view that payment of compensation would serve the ends of justice.
16. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, the nature of allegations and the fact that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the dispute alive, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
17. FIR No. 716/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are, therefore, quashed.
18. It is pointed out that one mixture machine used for the purpose of construction was ceased by the police during the course of investigation.
19. Since the proceedings in FIR No. 716/2020 are quashed, the SHO/IO of Police Station Bawana, is directed to release the aforesaid mixture machine to the registered owner.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 22, 2022/sk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 1867/2022 Page 8 of 8 Signing Date:28.07.2022 17:50:53