Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bhola Gupta & Anr vs State & Anr on 18 July, 2022

Author: Jasmeet Singh

Bench: Jasmeet Singh

                          $~29
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CRL.M.C. 5704/2019
                                 BHOLA GUPTA & ANR.                                ..... Petitioners
                                              Through:            Mr Manoj Pant and Mr Shailesh Jha,
                                                                  Advs.
                                                    versus
                                 STATE & ANR.                                        ..... Respondents
                                                    Through:      Mr Sanjiv Sabharwal, APP for State
                                                                  Mr Shivam Batra, Mr Akhil
                                                                  Ranganathan and Mr Anubhav Tyagi,
                                                                  Advs. for R-2 to R-5.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                              ORDER

% 18.07.2022

1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 165/2011 dated 19.07.2011, under Sections 285/304-A/337 IPC, registered at Police Station

- Moti Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground of a voluntary settlement made between the parties.

2. In the present case, there was a blast in the oxygen filling plant of the petitioners as a result of which one Mr Dinesh Shukla lost his life. The family members of the deceased, namely Mrs. Seeta Devi along with her children namely Ganga Prasad, Lakshmi Devi, Sushmita Devi, Anuradha and Monica have settled their disputes with the petitioner vide settlement deed dated 13.08.2019, as per which a sum of Rs. 6.25 lakhs was to be paid to the respondents. A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- had been paid earlier and out of the total amount of Rs. 6.25 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs is presently outstanding.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 26.05.2022, an affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, which indicates that the cylinder burst as the deceased fell asleep on duty and it was not due because of negligence of the owners of the factory.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the charge sheet which shows that the petitioners were not at fault, as the cylinder which was being filled with oxygen had an ISI mark and the blast was purely an accident.

5. The petitioners have also enhanced the settlement amount and have paid another additional sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs making the total settlement amount to Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 2.5 lakhs paid earlier and Rs. 7.5 lakhs paid today).

6. Both the parties state that they have entered into the aforesaid settlement out of their own will, volition and without any threat, force or coercion.

7. It has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein held 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT CRL.M.C. 5704/2019 Page 2 of 7 ARORA Signing Date:26.07.2022 10:56:54 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. 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."

8. As discussed above, offences punishable under Section 285/304A of the IPC are not compoundable being of a serious nature, however, if the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT CRL.M.C. 5704/2019 Page 3 of 7 ARORA Signing Date:26.07.2022 10:56:54 Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment, Rajneesh Kler & Ors vs. State in CRL.M.C. 1941/2008 dated 28.01.2009, while quashing an FIR under Section 285/304A/34 IPC, has satisfied itself that the situation demanded the same. The relevant paras are as under:

"17. The Supreme Court has in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla held as under (Cr.L.J. @ p.551):

"The mere fact that the appellant allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it might be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the appellant responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of burners in the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out. But what S. 304-A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act, and this means that death must be direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act."

18. Further in same judgment in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla, the question which was framed by the Supreme Court in the context of the offence under S. 285 IPC reads as under(Cr.L.J. @ p.552):

"The question is whether the appellant on the facts which have been proved knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with fire or combustible matter in his possession as was sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter."

19. In the considered view of this Court on a perusal of the charge sheet Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT CRL.M.C. 5704/2019 Page 4 of 7 ARORA Signing Date:26.07.2022 10:56:54 there is absolutely no material to even prima facie show that the death which occurred in the present case was as a result of any rash and negligent act on behalf of any of the petitioners or that it was the direct or proximate result of any rash and negligent act. Likewise, there is nothing to even prima facie show that the petitioners failed to take any steps in order to guard against the possible danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter.

20. In Ambalal D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat 1972 SCC (Cri.) 618 it explained by the Supreme Court that the question that has to be determined in the context of an offence under S. 304 is (SCC@ p. 625):

"whether the appellant's act is causa causans or has there been a cause interveniens which has broken the chain of causation so as to make his act, though a negligent one, not the immediate cause or whether it amounts to an act of gross negligence or recklessly negligent conduct."

21. In Naresh Giri it was further held (JCC @ p. 3287):

"Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304-A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor."

22. When examined in light of the law as explained hereinabove, this Court is unable to sustain the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Section 285/304A read with 34 IPC. Accordingly, insofar as these petitioners are concerned, the FIR No. 153 of 2007 under Section 285/304-A/34 IPC registered at Police Station R.K. Puram and all proceedings consequent thereto, including the charge sheet are hereby quashed."

10. In the present case also, the charge sheet seems to suggest that the blast of the cylinder was more of an accident rather that a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner.

11. Since the parties have already settled their dispute and the petitioner has further enhanced the settlement amount, it is felt that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the FIR No. 165/2011 dated 19.07.2011, under Sections 285/304-A/337 IPC, registered at Police Station - Moti Nagar, Delhi any further on the ground of voluntary settlement made between the parties.

12. I am convinced that quashing such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice. It is to be noted that no amount of money can substitute the loss of life. However, money can serve as a bridge to overcome the difficulties of life due to the loss of a family member. It can lessen the burden of the family members left behind. This should not be treated as a legal precedent and in this case the proceedings are quashed as the respondent has decided to put a quietus to the matter. The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted any further. It is a fit case for quashing. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to continue the proceedings.

13. In view of the above, FIR No. 165/2011 dated 19.07.2011, under Sections 285/304-A/337 IPC, registered at Police Station - Moti Nagar, Delhi is hereby quashed.

14. I am also of the view that the above settlement amounts are still on the lower side. I, therefore, recommend the respondents / complainant be awarded compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT CRL.M.C. 5704/2019 Page 6 of 7 ARORA Signing Date:26.07.2022 10:56:54 2018. The FIR No. 165/2011 be put before the Member Secretary of the DLSLA who shall treat the same as an application for compensation and shall process the same in accordance with the applicable provisions of the scheme. The Member Secretary shall inform the respondents/ complainant accordingly.

15. A Lawyer from the DLSLA may aid the complainant/ victim in this regard. Nothing contained in this order shall affect the rights of the respondents / complainant under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 or any other applicable Scheme/ Act, or rehabilitation programme.

16. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 18, 2022 sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT CRL.M.C. 5704/2019 Page 7 of 7 ARORA Signing Date:26.07.2022 10:56:54