Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S. Cobb Apparels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Govt Of Nct Delhi & Anr on 26 April, 2021
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7/2021
M/S. COBB APPARELS PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Dr.Anurag Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.M.S.Oberoi, APP for the
State with SI Sudeep Punia, PS
Punjabi Bagh.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 26.04.2021
1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
2. This petition is filed for quashing of the FIR No.786/2020 under Section 288/337/304A Indian Penal Code registered at police station Punjabi Bagh against them and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
3. It is alleged the deceased Yoginder @ Joginder Sharma, was working with the petitioners as a sweeper w.e.f. August 2019. He was duly registered for Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 vide ESIC No. 2214571709.
4. It is stated on 25.09.2020 at about 3:30 PM deceased Yoginder Sharma was engaged in some cleaning and dusting job at the residence of the director of the petitioner no.1 company at H.No.25, Road No.77, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi - 110026, he fell down from a wooden stair of about 8 ft. because of which he sustained injuries. He was admitted to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi for treatment by the petitioners and despite all due care and medical treatment, the life of the deceased could not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA CRL.M.C. 7/2021 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:27.04.2021 12:19 be saved and ultimately, he died. All the medical bills of the said hospital amounting to Rs.99,004/- were paid by the petitioners.
5. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner the incident was caused in the spur of moment when Yoginder Sharma lost his balance and fell down on the ground from the wooden stairs, without the negligence of any person.
6. It is submitted the deceased was unmarried and his father Ramesh Chand is the sole surviving dependant of the deceased and that he does not intend to pursue the FIR as has been paid a compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs of all his claims arising against the petitioner.
7. The Demand draft has been paid today in the Court. The respondent no.2 is present today and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer as well as the counsel.
8. I have also perused the statement of Joginder Singh who has also stated the deceased fell down from the stairs while cleaning. Similar are the statements of Ravinder and Shubham Sharma though they say some more safety measure ought to have been taken by the petitioners/owners of the company. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the stairs were only eight feet in height and due measures were taken but the incident happened at the spur of moment and further they submitted since the matter has been settled with the father of the petitioner the FIR must be quashed. He refers to Taranjeet Singh and Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. in W.P.CRL.550/2020 wherein the Court held:
"6. In the circumstances, I see no impediment as to why such FIR cannot be quashed. 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.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA CRL.M.C. 7/2021 Page 2 of 5 Signing Date:27.04.2021 12:19
Vs. State and Ors. In W.P.(CRL.) 2227/2019 decided on 02- 01-2021, FIR under Section 288/304A of IPC was quashed. Further in C.R.R. No. 1173/2018 Kolkata High Court had quashed a FIR under Section 304 (II) of IPC, registered under other sections too.
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 tranquility 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 MANU/SC/0230/2003 : 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. Further in Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (6) SCC 466 the Court held:
"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:
(I) xxxx Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA CRL.M.C. 7/2021 Page 3 of 5 Signing Date:27.04.2021 12:19 (II) 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.
(III) to (VI) xxxxx (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
10. The affidavits of Bhupinder Kumar, Ravinder and Shubham Sharma have also been placed on record.
11. Considering the above facts, there is no use to proceed with the criminal case as continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA CRL.M.C. 7/2021 Page 4 of 5 Signing Date:27.04.2021 12:19 sheer waste of time and would not entail conviction of petitioner, hence considering the law above in Taranjeet Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra) the petition is allowed.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.786/2020 Section 288/337/304A Indian Penal Code registered at police station Punjabi Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
APRIL 26, 2021 M Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA CRL.M.C. 7/2021 Page 5 of 5 Signing Date:27.04.2021 12:19