The commission of a 'rash and/or negligent act' is a necessary ingredient for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC. The court emphasized the importance of establishing gross negligence and the element of mens rea to secure a conviction.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 104/2018 registered under Sections 279/337 IPC at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, as well as the consequent proceedings including filing of chargesheet.

2. Although initially the grounds urged in support of quashing of the FIR were limited to the settlement arrived at between the parties, during the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative also addressed submissions on the merits of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised doubts on the credibility and reliability of the statement of the alleged eye-witness/Bhim Sen. It was contended that even though the said witness claimed to be working near the site of accident, neither the investigating officer made any local enquiry nor the said witness came forward. Rather, his statement came to be recorded later, after a period of 38 days, that too under mysterious circumstances. He further argued that on reading of the entire prosecution case, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. reported as (2008) 1 SCC 791, Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka reported as (2007) 3 SCC 474 and State of Karnataka v. Satish reported as (1998) 8 SCC 493 and the decisions of this Court in Rawal Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 2511/2022, Bhavna Arora v. State of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1836/2022 and Birender @ Virender Ram v. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 3459/2021.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the present FIR having been registered under Section 304A IPC and the alleged offence being serious in nature, the case cannot be quashed merely on the basis of settlement between the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the material placed on record.

7. The FIR in question came to be registered on 01.03.2018 on the complaint of sister of the deceased, who stated that though a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, she had come to Delhi for her medical treatment and was staying with her brother (the deceased). On 01.03.2018 at 7:30 a.m., while she alongwith her brother was crossing the Nelson Mandela Road towards Vasant Vihar, a Car came at speed from the Vasant Kunj side & hit her brother. As a result of the impact, he fell down and the Driver of the offending Car ran away. After some time, a CATS Ambulance came at the spot, whereafter her brother was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre Hospital. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 279/337 IPC, however, later on receipt of information regarding demise of the injured/Rajpal Singh Rawat on 14.03.2018, Section 304A IPC was added to the case.

8. Before proceeding further, it is deemed expedient to recapitulate the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as repeatedly expounded by the Supreme Court, including in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where the parameters for exercise of powers of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been outlined as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formu