The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences under Section 482 of the CrPC if a settlement is reached and gross negligence is not established, serving the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks quashing of FIR No. 0231/2017 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') registered at PS Connaught Place and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the chargesheet pending in the Court of Sh. Yashdeep Chahal, Metropolitan Magistrate - 01, Patiala House, New Delhi.

Background

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:

i. On 25.11.2017, information was received at PS Connaught Place that one Rakesh had been brought LHMC Hospital at 11:30 AM by the workers of Embassy Hotel, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The said person had fell unconscious after suffering an electric shock and had burn marks on his abdomen, forearm and foot. The MLC reflected that he had been declared brought dead to the hospital. It was informed that the deceased worked in the kitchen of Embassy Hotel and was electrocuted while he was lifting a cylinder.

ii. A team of police personnel reached the hotel and inspected the crime scene. Two electrical wires and a cylinder was seized and CCTV footage of the alleged incident was obtained.

iii. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and his cause of death was opined as "electrocution and its complications".

iv. During the course of investigation, the scene was investigated by the Electrical Inspector and in his report, he stated as under:

"Since electric wires for feeding supply to sensor of sewage treatment plant were found laid directly on the floor in a quite temporary manner and partially put in PVC conduit pipe which was found in broken/ damaged condition, hence usage of such electric wires in unsafe and it does not ensure safety of human beings, animals and property in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 12(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010."

v. During the course of investigation, the petitioners who are the Managing Partners of Embassy Hotel were arrested and interrogated. Under interrogation, the petitioners stated that the hotel is managed by them and they are responsible for the maintenance and day to day affairs related to the hotel. After interrogation, the petitioners were released on bail.

vi. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed qua the petitioners under Section 304A of the IPC.

Submissions of behalf of the Petitioners

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted during the pendency of the trial in the present case, the petitioners have arrived at a settlement with respondent no. 2, who is the father of the deceased vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure-P3). It was submitted that pursuant to the said settlement, respondent no. 2 has no objection if the FIR is quashed and he has also given an affidavit to that effect (Annexure-P5). It was submitted that in terms of the settlement, respondent no. 2 has been duly compensated and the amounts that he was legally entitled to like life insurance, provident fund, pension, gratuity etc. have also been released to him. Respondent no. 2 was present in Court alongwith counsel on a previous date of hearing, i.e., 27.07.2023 and submitted that all the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement have been complied with and nothing else remains to be paid.

3.1. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments/orders:

i. Suresh Kumar v. State & Anr., Order dated 19.04.2022 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in CRL.MC. 1761/2021.

ii. Taranjeet Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2020:DHC:1707.

iii. Kamal Kishore v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2020:HDC:454.

iv. Babu Khan and Anr. v. State & Ors., 2019:DHC:4392.

v. Ashok Kumar Singhla v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2016:DHC:4048.

Submissions of behalf of the State

4. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposed the present petition and submitted that the repor