JUDGMENT

Suresh Kait, J.— Notice.

2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 also accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

Parties are identified by their respective counsels.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 131/2011 dated 19th September, 2011 a case was registered under Sec. 304A registered with PS Sonia Vihar, against the petitioner on the DD Entry No. 11A by the police, at PS Sonia Vihar.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Tarun Electricals which carries on work of maintenance of electrical installations of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd on annual maintenance contract basis. On 19th September, 2011, the deceased Harvir Singh S/o Bhikari Singh died on account of fall from an electric pole while he was performing his duties. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’.

Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased and they do not want to prosecute the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner and they do not want to proceed any further either before the court or tribunal for recovery of any compensation of damages in relation to the death of the deceased due to the reasons that vide the compromise agreement dated 28th November, 2011, the matter has been settled between the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioner i.e. M/s Tarun Electricals agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the family of the deceased as compensation and part payment of Rs.20,000 has already been advanced in the name of Smt. Rakesh Wati @ Rakesh Devi W/o late Sh. Harvir Singh vide cheque No.732235 dated 28th November, 2011.

Learned counsel further submits that balance of Rs.3,80,000 has been brought today vide demand drafts Nos. 147458 favouring Sanuj Chaudhary for Rs.10,000, 147459 favouring Radha Chaudhary for Rs.2,00,000, 147460 favouring Deepa Chaudhary for Rs.1,50,000 147461 favouring Rakesh Devi for Rs.10,000 and 147462 favouring Rajo for Rs.10,000 all dated 3rd December, 2011. The same has handed over to Smt. Rakesh Wati @ Rakesh Devi who is wife of the deceased. She has accepted the same without any protest.

Learned counsel further submits that Rs.1,00,000 and pension will also be paid the family of the deceased as ESI benefits. The wife of the deceased namely Rakesh Wati @ Rakesh Devi as well as the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Rajo, respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively are present in the Court with their counsels.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6, on instructions, submits that respondents are satisfied with the compensation received from the petitioners. Therefore, they are no more interesting to pursue the case mentioned above.

Learned counsel further submits that on this juncture, the family is in need and that is why without filing their claim in the tribunal they will receive the compensation and they have accepted the same. Otherwise getting compensation shall take substantial time in the Court and since the matter has been settled fully with the petitioner, therefore, the respondents have no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6. Learned APP on the other hand submits that in the instant case one young life has been lost and compensation of Rs.4,00,000 is not sufficient. The deceased belonged to a very poor family. She has requested this Court to increase the compensation while quashing the FIR.

7. I find force in the submissions of learned APP. Keeping the fact and circumstances of the case in view and the need of the family of the deceased at this juncture, I impose costs of Rs.1,00,000 upon he petitioner to be paid in favour of the wife of the deceased. The said amount of cost shall be paid within one week by the petitioner by way of demand draft in favour of respondent No.3 I further direct respondent No. 3. Smt. Rakesh Wati @ Rakesh Devi that the said money shall be kept in FDR initially for a period of