Delhi District Court
State vs Vikash on 12 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-12, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.159/2019
PS Wazirabad
U/s 279/338 IPC
State Vs.Vikash
Crl. Case No. : 1367-2021
Date of institution of the case : 28.01.2021
Date of commission of offence : 13.06.2019
Name of the complainant : Hori Lal
S/o Sh.Duli Chand Bhatiya
Name of accused and address : Vikas
S/o Sh.Kavi Raj
R/o H.No.69/100, Harijan
Basti Firoz Shah, Kotla Near
Rajghat Delhi Gate, Central,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date on which judgment reserved : Not reserved.
Date of judgment : 12.08.2025
BHARTI
BENIWAL
Digitally signed by
BHARTI BENIWAL
Date: 2025.08.12
14:44:20 +0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
State Vs.Vikas FIR No.159/2019 Page No. 1 of 6
ORDER
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.06.2019 at 7 AM at CC Road, near Police Booth, Hardev Nagar, Wazirabad, Delhi, accused was found driving the vehicle bearing no.DL7SBU4032 in rash and negligent manner and at a high speed so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the above stated vehicle in above stated manner, he had hit against complainant Hori Lal and caused simple hurt to him and thereby committed offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC.
2. Charge sheet in the present case was filed under Section 279/338 IPC. Matter was compromised between the injured on one hand and the accused on the other hand and compensation was paid to the complainant and the injured which was willingly accepted by him. Statement of the parties was recorded and offence under 338 IPC was compounded with the permission of the court.
3. It is pertinent to note that the complainant / injured is the chief witness of the prosecution and has already received compensation from the accused and compounded the major offence disclosed in the charge sheet. An issue has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on the last date of hearing that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. for stopping the proceedings as nothing fruitful would be achieved. There is possibility of witnesses not deposing against the accused. I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. Even more relevant is the description of accident in Asal Tehrir and statement of victim. Even otherwise the allegations made by the complainant / injured are only that accused was driving the vehicle fast and had hit him. The exact manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the accused is not Digitally signed by BHARTI _____________________________________________________________________________ BHARTI BENIWAL State Vs.Vikas FIR No.159/2019 BENIWAL Page No. 2 of 6 Date:
2025.08.12 14:44:28 +0530 mentioned in Asal Tehrir or statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 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 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 decision titled 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 non compoundable...
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 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 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 Digitally compoundable, there cannot be any signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
2025.08.12 _____________________________________________________________________________ 14:44:24 State Vs.Vikas FIR No.159/2019 Page No. 3 of 6 +0530 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 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 componding 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)
4. Therefore, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that once injury was received by rash and negligent driving, only Section 337 IPC ought to be invoked i.e. the graver of the two offences Digitally signed by BHARTI _____________________________________________________________________________BHARTI BENIWAL State Vs.Vikas FIR No.159/2019 Page No. 4 of BENIWAL 6 Date:
2025.08.12 14:44:33 +0530 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.
5. 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.
6. The High Court was also of the view that once offence under Section 337 IPC is compounded continuing the trial for the offence under Section 279 IPC shall be vexing the accused twice. I am not fully in agreement with the view that Section 279 IPC loses 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. However, 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 under Section 279 IPC when the major offence under Section 337/338 IPC have already been compounded by the victim.
7. 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 as no witness has been examined.
8. In view of the above stated discussions, accused namely Vikas S/o Sh.Kaviraj is hereby discharged from the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
2025.08.12 _____________________________________________________________________________ 14:44:49 +0530 State Vs.Vikas FIR No.159/2019 Page No. 5 of 6
9. Accused be set at liberty.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in the open court on this BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL 12th August, 2025. BENIWAL Date:
2025.08.12 14:44:37 +0530 (BHARTI BENIWAL) JMFC - 12, Central THC Delhi/12.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________________ State Vs.Vikas FIR No.159/2019 Page No. 6 of 6