Delhi High Court - Orders
Pawan Kumar vs State Gnct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 August, 2021
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 105/2021
PAWAN KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Harit Chhabra, Advocate.
versus
STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.M.S.Oberoi, APP for State with
ASI Jai Bhagwan, PS NIA.
Ms.Tanusha Mishra, Advocate for
respondent No.2 with R2 and his
sister-Sunita.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 02.08.2021
1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
2. This petition is filed for quashing of the FIR No.146/2019 under Section 288/304A IPC registered at P.S. Narela Industrial Area which was got registered by respondent no.2 against the petitioner.
3. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on receipt of GD No.45A dated 23.03.2019 that Bhagwan Dass (father of respondent No.2) son of Mutiya aged 50 years resident of C-1/28, Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi has been hospitalised through his son Rajesh/respondent No.2 herein as he was injured; accidently fallen from the first floor while painting factory No.E-724, DSIIDC, Narela, Delhi. Bhagwan Dass died during his treatment.
4. The aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner, being an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.08.2021 17:31 owner of the factory. After investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. However, due to intervention of the family members and members of society, the respondent No.2, being the son of deceased and Sunita, his sister have arrived at settlement with the petitioner for a total sum of Rs.1.75lac. The respondent and his sister namely Sunita are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The wife of deceased had predeceased him.
5. The affidavits of the respondent No.2 and Sunita, his sister are on the record and they say they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. The respondent No.2 and Sunita, his sister have also admitted of having received an amount of Rs.87,500/- each by way of demand draft. The affidavits state they have entered into the compromise without undue pressure, force or coercion and with their free will and have settled all their grievances against the petitioner. The respondent No.2 and Sunita, his sister have been duly identified by their learned counsel.
6. The learned APP for the State submits though some more amount ought to have been given to the respondent No.2 as compensation but the respondent No.2 and Sunita, his sister say they are satisfied with the amount so given and also as to the circumstances under which their father had fallen from the first floor. Their father was employed a day prior to this death.
7. In Kamal Kishore vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. Cr.L.M.C. 3878/2019 decided on 22.01.2020, FIR under Section 304-A of IPC was quashed by this Court. Further in Babu Khan and Ors. Vs. State and Ors; in W.P.(CRL.) 2227/2019 decided on 05.09.2019, FIR under Section 288/304A IPC was quashed. Further vide C.R.R. No.1173/2018 Kolkata High Court had quashed a FIR under Section 304 (II) of IPC, registered and under other sections too.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.08.2021 17:318. In Pankaj Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. the following was held:
"9. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non compoundable."
9. I am also satisfied with the submissions made by the petitioner that deceased suffered injuries only because of an accident and not because of his negligence and that petitioner took all precautions at the place of incident.
10. Admittedly, respondent No.2 and Sunita, his sister since have settled the matter amicably with the petitioner hence continuance of the proceedings shall be a futile exercise.
11. In the circumstances, I see no impediment as to why this FIR be not quashed. I am convinced the offence does not affect the public peace and tranquillity and the compromise shall bring the peace and would secure the ends of justice.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.146/2019, under Section 288/304A IPC registered at P.S. Narela Industrial Area and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.08.2021 17:31 the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2021 M Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:03.08.2021 17:31