Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Bhajan Lal Sharma —Petitioner
versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. —Respondents
W.P.(Crl.) No.1280 of 2016 and Crl. M.A. No.6706 of 2016
Decided on 1.8.2016
Held: There is nothing to show that the accident was providential, and that it occurred despite due care and precaution being taken by the petitioner. There is also nothing to show that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are a result of mala fides of any person, or an abuse of the process of the Court. The accident has, undoubtedly, taken place in which one labourer has lost his life. The nature of the accident itself is, prima-facie, suggestive of gross negligence. In my view, it would defeat the ends of justice if the criminal proceedings were to be quashed. The present endeavour of the petitioner to seek quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom – premised on a settlement with respondents No.2 to 9, itself tantamounts to an abuse of the process of this Court. In a case like the present, even though respondents No.2 to 9 may have entered into a settlement with the petitioner, it cannot be said that the possibility of conviction is remote. It cannot be said that the petitioner would be put to great oppression and prejudice, or that extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case.
In my view, quashing the FIR in question at this stage would certainly send a very wrong signal not only to the petitioner, but the whole society at large and particularly to other builders, contractors and other agencies engaged in undertaking construction work, that even if they are grossly negligent in taking preventive measures so as to prevent predictable accidents – which may lead to serious injury and even loss of life, they could get away by paying some compensation to the heirs of the injured/ deceased. In fact, such like contractors/ builders/ agencies may find it more economical to risk the lives of their workforce, and in the eventuality of an accident occurring, to pay compensation, than to undertake all safety measures which, if taken, would prevent such accidents in the first place.
As observed by the Supreme Court in Sheonandan Paswan (supra), criminal proceedings are not a proceeding for vindication of private grievance. They are initiated for the punishment of the offender in the interest of the society. It is for maintaining stability and orderliness in the society that certain acts are constituted offences and the right given to any citizen to set the machinery of criminal law into motion for the purpose of bringing the offender to book.
In A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr., (1984) 2 SCC 500, the Supreme Court held that punishment of the offender in society is in the interest of the society. It is one of the objects of the penal statutes enacted for the larger good of the society.
I am of the view that quashing of criminal proceedings in the present case would create and set an unhealthy precedent, and send wrong signals to the society at large. (Paras 31 to 35)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to seek the quashing of FIR No. 619/2015 dated 25.12.2015 registered at PS New Friends Colony under Sections 288/337/304A IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a building contractor. He was engaged to carry out construction work on Plot No. D-1093, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The aforesaid FIR came to be registered in pursuance of DD No. 8A dated 25.12.2015 recorded at Police Station New Friends Colony regarding collapse of a building at New Friends Colony, resulting in people getting buried under the debris.
3. The case of the prosecution is that after reaching the spot, on investigation by the police it was revealed that during excavation of basement in a dangerous manner, debris and soil fell on the labourers. On search in the debris, one of the labourer Badri Prasad, son of Keram, aged 65 years, was removed. He was removed to the hospital. He was declared brought dead by the hospital. Several other labourers i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 9 herein were also injured in the accident, and were taken to AIIMS for treatment. Investigations revealed that the construction of basement was being carried out without any safety measures. The crime team reported the commission of an offence under Sections 288/337/304A IPC. The deceased Badri Prasad is survived by respondent No.2-his wife, and respondent Nos. 3 and 4-his sons.
4. The present petition is premised on a settlement arrived at between the petitioner on the one hand, and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 on the other hand, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, South District, Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,600/- as ambulance charges, totaling Rs. 4,70,600/-, against receipt dated 26.12.2015 to the LRs of the deceased Badri Prasad, namely, respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 made a statement before the Deputy Labour Commissioner that they had not received any injury and that they do not want any compensation from the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 also filed their affidavits before the Labour Court in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 9 do not want any further action in the matter, and that the said respondents have no objection if the said FIR and the proceedings arising there from are quashed, as no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the same.
5. Along with the petition, the affidavits of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have also been filed, stating that an amicable settlement of all disputes has been reached with petitioner No. 1 without any pressure or coercion, and that each of the said respondent has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings arising there from are quashed.
6. The State has filed its counter affidavit seriously opposing the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising there from.
7. The submission of Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that, firstly, there is nothing to show that there was any negligence, much less grave negligence on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the construction work, which led to the accident resulting in death of the labourer Badri Prasad. Mr. Sethi submits that the petitioner is concerned about the well-being of his labour force, and the petitioner did not take any time to assuage the suffering of the LRs of the deceased Badri Prasad. He submits that without any delay, the payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,70,600/- was made on 26.12.2015 itself. Mr. Sethi submits that there was no mens rea to commit the offences of which the petitioner has been accused. Mr. Sethi further submits that since the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have supported the petition, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR and the proceedings there under pending any further.
8. Mr. Sethi submits that in a large number of other cases under Section 304
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
