Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Sunil Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
Cr.M.C. 4635 of 2019
Decided On : 20-10-2023
Negligence - Quashing of FIR - 304A/287 IPC - Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a business proprietor, filed a petition to quash an FIR registered under sections 287/304A IPC, relating to the death of an employee who fell from a lift. The petitioner had settled with the legal heirs of the deceased and sought to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, noting that the death was a sheer accident and cannot be attributed to the petitioner's negligence. The legal heirs had been compensated, and continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed considering the settlement between the parties and the nature of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and considered previous judgments where FIRs were quashed based on settlements and lack of responsibility of the petitioners in similar incidents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, as the death was deemed an accident and the legal heirs had been compensated.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing no. 0067/2019 registered under sections 287/304A IPC at P.S. Mundka along with consequential judicial proceedings.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer SI Karanveer, P.S. Mundka, accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent no. 1. The respondents no. 2 and 3, who are stated to be the legal heirs of Ramesh Chander Jha i.e. the deceased being his wife and son are present in person and accept notice.
4. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Ganpati Packers and was running business of manufacturing of corrugated packing boxes under proprietorship. Ramesh Chandra Jha, one of the employee of the petitioner has fallen from the lift on 13.02.2019 and consequently died. Accordingly the present FIR was got registered.
5. As per the FIR, GD no.032A dated 13.02.2019 was recorded on the basis of PCR call, which was handed over to ASI Phool Kunwar Kumar for further action. ASI Phool Kunwar Kumar along with Ct. Sonu also on receipt of DD no.16A reached at the spot i.e Ordent Ganpati Hospital, Swarn Park Nangloi, Delhi and from where he reached Sonia Hospital Nangloi, Delhi and obtained MLC No. 4182/19 pertaining to Ramesh Chandra Jha (since deceased) and the reason of death was opined as `fall from lift'. No eyewitness was found in the hospital. ASI Phool Kunwar Kumar went to the spot i.e Ganpati Packers, near M.R Bharti Public School and inspected the spot and found that rope and wire of the lift were broken. The reason attributed to the cause of death of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased) was due to negligence on behalf of the proprietor of the M/s Ganpati Packers. The charge-sheet was filed under section 173 Cr.P.C. after conclusion of investigation and the trial is stated to be pending in the court of Ms. Babita Punia, MM, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/Successor Court. The respondents no. 2 and 3, who are the surviving legal heirs of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased) are identified by the Investigating Officer SI Karanveer, P.S. Mundka.
6. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has settled with the respondents no. 2 and 3, who are the surviving legal heirs of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased) vide oral settlement whereby the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only) as compensation to them. The petitioner thereafter increased the compensation to Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Only) to be paid to the respondents no. 2 and 3, who are the surviving legal heirs of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased). The petitioner has already paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.7,00,000/- by way of cheque in the name of widow of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased), which was duly encashed, which is acknowledged by the respondents no. 2 and 3. The petitioner has agreed to pay balance settled amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondents no. 2 and 3 within one day, which is agreed by the respondents no. 2 and 3.
7. The counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the allegations made in FIR bearing no. 0067/2019, death of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased) was purely an accident and cannot be attributed to the negligence on the part of petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further stated that the respondents no. 2 and 3, who are the surviving legal heirs of Ramesh Chander Jha (since deceased) have been duly compensated. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR bearing no. 0067/2019 be quashed along with consequential judicial proceedings.
8. The respondents no. 2 and 3 stated that as they have been duly compensated as such, they do not have any objection if the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing no. 0067/2019 is quashed along with consequential judicial proceedings.
9. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent no. 1 stated that one precious human life has been lost due to
AI
The court's decision emphasized the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving settlem....
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.
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 High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (or S. 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences like IPC 304A where the parties have settled, provid....
The discretionary nature of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the need for a full trial to determine negligence before quashing an FIR.
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.
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
