Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Vinod Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The State & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 5131 of 2022
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Settlement - Employee's Compensation Act - The court quashed the FIR and proceedings based on a settlement reached between the parties, where the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000 to the respondent towards all claims, and the respondent agreed to withdraw all matters arising from the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sustained a hand injury at the petitioner's factory, leading to the registration of FIR No.159/2018. A settlement was reached between the parties, and the respondent agreed to withdraw all matters arising from the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a settlement had been reached voluntarily and adequately compensated the respondent. It concluded that quashing the FIR and proceedings was in the interest of justice, considering the settlement and the parties' reluctance to pursue the complaint.
Issues: Quashing of FIR and proceedings based on settlement, voluntary nature of the settlement, adequacy of compensation, and interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the voluntary nature of the settlement, adequacy of compensation, and the parties' reluctance to pursue the complaint in reaching the decision to quash the FIR and proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No.159/2018, under Sections 287/337 of IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, based on the settlement reached between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.159/2018, under Sections 287/337of IPC, (subsequently section 338 was added) registered at Police Station: Keshav Puram and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stating, the respondent no 2 was working as laborer in the factory of the Petitioner i.e. M/s Shivam Plastic Factory. On 24.04.2018, respondent no. 2 sustained Law rated wound on his hand from a machine in the factory of petitioner. Thereafter, FIR no 159/2018 was registered by SI Virender.
3. Respondent No.2/complainant lodged acomplaint with the Commissioner Employee's Compensation under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. During the pendency of the said complaint, the respondent No.2/complaint and the petitioner entered into a settlement/compromise dated 04.09.2019. The petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand) tothe respondent No.2/complainant towards all the claims of Respondent no.2. on the following terms and conditions:
1. That the complainant has filed an application for compensation before the Hon'ble Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act at Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi.
2. That the second party has offered t 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Thousand Only) as full and final settlement to the complainant on the condition that the complainant would withdraw all the matters arising out of the said FIR No. 159 of 2018 at Police Station Keshav puram under section 287 and337.
3. That the second party would pay Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one Lac Ten Thousand only) tomorrow on dated 04.09.2019 before the Hon'ble commissioner, Nimri colony, New Delhi vide D.D. No.907858 as party payment.
4. That the second party would pay the remaining Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) at Rohini Court when the charge sheet of said FIR No.159 of 2018 would be filed by the investigating officer.
5. That the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions imposed by the second party.
6. That the complainant/first party would not file any further case regarding the said FIR No. 159 of 2018 in future too and co-operate in compounding of FIR before the court.
7. That both the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement deed. The present settlement shall be failed if second party failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.50.000- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and the first instalment amount shall be forfeited.
4. Respondent no. 2 submits that as per the terms and conditions of the settlement deed dated 04.09.2019, the he has already received Rs.1,10,000/- vide demand draft No. 907858 dated 04.09.2019 before the commissioner Employee's compensation. Petitioner submits that the remaining amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to Respondent no. 2 at the time of filing of chargesheet.
5. In addition to the settled amount of Rs1,60,000/- the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- which was incurred on the treatment of the respondent No.2.
6. Respondent No.2 states that he has entered into the settlement voluntarily without fear, force and coercion, or undue influence. The petitioner has adequately compensated the respondentNo.2/complainant. The respondent No.2/complainant has also given hisno- objection to the quashing of said FlR. In the interest of justice it would be better to put a quietus to the dispute. The chances of conviction would also be bleak and remote, given that the parties do not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the settlement. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement.
7. Taking into account the totality of facts, circumstances, and submissions of the respondent No.2, the case FIR No.159/2018, under Sections 287/337 of IPC, (subsequently section 338 was added) registered at Police Station: Keshav Puram and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
8. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.
The court may quash criminal proceedings if a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations and the chances of conviction are bleak.
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....
The court may quash proceedings under section 482 CrPC when the chances of conviction are bleak and a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations.
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 court may quash an FIR when parties reach an amicable settlement and the complainant agrees to withdraw their claims without objection.
Courts may quash FIR and criminal proceedings based on settlement reached between the parties, considering the free will of the parties and the totality of facts and circumstances.
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
