Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Ankit Keyal – Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 4031 of 2022
Decided On : 24-04-2023
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 285/34/337 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 98/2019 registered under Sections 285/34/337 IPC, relating to a fire incident at a shop resulting in injuries and death. The parties have amicably settled the matter, and the respondents no longer wish to pursue the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter has been settled between the parties voluntarily, and the respondents have received the entire settled amount. The court considered the totality of facts and circumstances and concluded that the continuance of the FIR would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Issues: Quashing of FIR, Settlement between Parties
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the voluntary settlement between the parties, the affidavit of no objection filed by the respondents, and the lack of desire to pursue the complaint. It also noted the bleak chances of conviction and the futility of continuing the FIR in light of the settlement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present petition has been moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of case FIR No. 98/2019 dated 16.06.2019 registered under Sections 285/34/337 IPC at PS Lahori Gate, Delhi. The said FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent No.2 namely Mohd. Fareed informing about a fire that broke out in the top floor at Shop No 547, Gali Shiv Mandir, Katra, Neel, Chandi Chowk where he was working. As per the status report, section 304A and 338 IPC were added after the investigation. Chargesheet is stated to have been filed and the matter is pending before the Ld. MM HC, Delhi, however charges are yet to be framed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was the sole proprietor of M/s Keyal Design Company at Shop No 547, Gali Shiv Mandir, Katra, Neel, Chandi Chowk. As per the FIR, it has been alleged that at the said place on 15.06.2019 at around 19:07 PM, the work of dry cleaning was being carried out and some people were working at the said premises. It has been alleged that nearby there was crane containing petrol and some chemicals and suddenly a fire broke out. On account of the fire, respondent No.2 suffered serious burn injuries and one other employee namely Quraatul Ain succumbed to his injury and passed away on 18.06.2019. Death certificate of Quraatul Ain has been placed on record. The deceased Quraatul Ain is survived by his legal heirs which include Ms. Rabiya Khatoon (wife), Mohd. Taukir Ahmad (father), Mrs. Azima Khatoon (mother), Master Nomad Ahmad (minor son), Ms. Rokaiya Naz (minor daughter), Master Sofiyan (minor son), Master Sovan (minor son), Ms. Summaiya (minor daughter) who are respondent Nos 3 to 10 herein.
3. Ld. Counsel submits that the matter has been amicably settled between all the parties. Mr. Gurmehar Singh Sistani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the matter vide MoU dated 29.07.2022. It has further been stated that respondent No.2 has also been awarded compensation by the office of Commissioner Employees Compensation (North) for a sum of Rs.9,88,560/- which has already been paid to respondent No. 2. Moreover, the matter has also been settled between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 10 who are the legal heirs of the deceased - Quraatul Ain by way of settlement agreement dated 04.08.2022. It has been stated that the legal heirs of the deceased - Quraatul Ain have also been awarded compensation by the office of Commissioner Employees Compensation (North) for a sum of Rs.7,18,960/- which stands already paid.
4. Mr. Aditya Singla, learned counsel appears for the respondents and submits that the respondents have entered into the settlement voluntarily at their own free will, without fear force or coercion. Both the MoU dated 29.07.2022 and 04.08.2022 have duly been placed on the record.
5. Mr. Gurmehar Singh Sistani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though as per the MoU, Rs.85,000/- was to be paid to the respondent No.2 and Rs.82,000/- was to be paid to the LRs of the deceased Quraatul Ain. However, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,50,000/-. It has been stated with respect to respondent No. 2, Rs.1,25,000/- has been paid on the day of Eid and remaining Rs.1,25,000/- is being paid today by way of NEFT dated 22.04.2023 in favour of Fareed. Learned counsel further submits that in respect of legal heirs of respondent Nos. 3 to 10, the petitioner has increased the compensation amount from Rs.82,000/- and shall now pay Rs.2,50,000/-. The said amount shall be paid today by way of demand draft in favour of Ms. Rabiya Khatoon (wife of deceased -Quraatul Ain).
6. Both the learned counsels submit that the parties no longer wish to pursue the present complaint and wants to put a quietus to the same on account of the settlement arrived between the parties.
7. The parties are present in pers
Voluntary settlement between parties and lack of desire to pursue the complaint can be grounds for quashing an FIR.
The voluntary nature of a settlement agreement, the fulfillment of its terms, and the express wish of the parties not to pursue a complaint can be grounds for quashing an FIR and subsequent proceedin....
The court may quash an FIR if an amicable settlement has been reached between the parties and the continuance of the FIR would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Voluntary and lawful settlements in private disputes may lead to the quashing of proceedings.
The court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when parties have settled the dispute and the continuation of the proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice.
The voluntary nature of the settlement, adequacy of compensation, and the parties' reluctance to pursue the complaint influenced the court's decision to quash the FIR and proceedings.
The court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and a settlement between the parties that would lead to better relations may be a valid reason for quashing....
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
