SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Bhanwar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 1290 of 2021
Decided On : 28-05-2021




Criminal proceedings can be quashed when there is a civil element involved, and both parties have reached a settlement, particularly in cases of accidents resulting in death.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 288 and 304A - Quashing of FIR - Petition for quashing filed based on a Memorandum of Settlement between the parties regarding an accidental death during construction work. Petitioner agreed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant. The respondent affirmed receipt of compensation and lack of grievance, indicating a settled dispute. Court acknowledged the parameters laid out in Parbatbhai Aahir case for exercising inherent jurisdiction, noting that continuation of the proceedings would not serve any useful purpose and could be oppressive. (Paras 1, 3, 8, 9)

Findings of Court:
The FIR is quashed, and proceedings arising therefrom are terminated as the parties have amicably resolved the dispute.

Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed given the settlement and acknowledgment of the accidental nature of the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of settling disputes with civil elements in criminal cases, allowing quashing when a compromise indicates remote chances of conviction.

Result: FIR No. 97/2019 is quashed.

Table of Content
1. accidental nature of the incident and context of fir (Para 1 , 2)
2. settlement between parties and compensation paid (Para 3 , 7)
3. proceedings conducted with parties present (Para 5 , 6)
4. parameters for quashing fir based on civil nature of dispute (Para 8 , 9)
5. quashing of fir and conclusion of proceedings (Para 10)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 97/2019, under Sections 288 /304A IPC, registered at police station Madan Garhi, Delhi on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.04.2021 reached with respondent No.2, who is the complainant of FIR in question.

2. The FIR in question pertains to an accident which took place on 23.04.2019 at the house of petitioner, where construction work was going on and husband of respondent No.2 was working as Mason. He accidently fell down from the third floor of the under-construction house of petitioner and died on the spot,.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the incident in question was purely accidental and after registration of FIR at the instance of respondent No.2, a claim petition was filed by her before Authority Under Employees Compensation, New Delhi against the petitioner. Thereafter, Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.04.2021 was reached between petitioner and respondent No.2, wherein petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to respondent No.2. Further submitted that the terms of aforesaid settlement have been fully complied with and in view thereof, the present petition be allowed.

4. Notice issued.

5. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2/complainant is present through video conferencing and she has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of this case, who is also present through video conferencing.

6. With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken up for hearing and disposal.

7. Respondent No.2 submits that she understands that the incident in question was accidental. She affirms the factum of settlement arrived with petitioner in terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.04.2021 as well as contents of her affidavit dated 16.04.2021 filed in support of this petition. She also affirms having already received compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from petitioner, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to her before this Court today. She also submits that she has been adequately compensated and no grievance against petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR/criminal proceedings, which are as under:

    "16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

    16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

    16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice."

9. Keeping in view that the incident in question was purely accidental and the fact that respondent No.2 has been adequately compensated and also that the parties have amicably decided to give a quietus to the dispute between them, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top