$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.02.2025 + W.P.(CRL) 3400/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32719/2024 SUDESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Rana, Mr. Tushar Rohmetra and Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0612/2024 dated 07.10.2024 registered at P.S. Alipur, Delhi for offences under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on basis of the Compromise Deed dated 19.10.2024 executed between the Petitioner, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was awarded the tender of the construction work for the construction of RCC drain from Village Jindpur (GT Road) to village Mukhmelpur (Drain No. 86) Distt North vide Signature Not Verified agreement No. EE/CD-VI/ACS- 17/2023-24/1568 dated 15.06.2023. It is stated that on 07.10.2024 unfortunately a five years old boy namely Rahul, fell into the sewer near MCD School Jindpur and lost his life, pursuant to which the subject FIR was registered against the Petitioner.

3. Learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that the victim's death was purely accidental and that there was no foul play on the part of the Petitioner.

3.1 He states that the unfortunate incident took place on the footpath side which goes from Alipur to Jindpur. He states that the said footpath side of the drain had already been completed as per CPWD specification; and the drain was properly covered at the points of opening pit of drain area by placing 100MM thick factory made pre cast RCC rectangular covers on drain of 400.00 Sqm. He states that after the due inspection by the Assistant Engineer, CPWD the Petitioner had also been released the part payment of the project. He states that the said drain was being used by the general public and Municipal Corporation of Delhi was solely liable to clean the said drain.

He states that there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner.

3.2 He however, states that Petitioner on humanitarian grounds has agreed to enter into a compromise with the family of the victim. He states that in pursuance thereof, the Petitioners has entered into a Compromise Deed dated 19.10.2024 with the parents of the victim child i.e. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and in pursuance thereof the present petition has been filed for the quashing of the subject FIR.

3.3 He states that as recorded in the order dated 30.01.2025 the Petitioner in deference to the observations made by the predecessor Bench and in accordance with the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Chetan Malhotra Signature Not Verified vs. Lala Ram, [2016 SCC OnLine Del 2981] has agreed to pay an enhanced compensation of a total amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He states that this Court had directed the Petitioner to assist Respondents No. 2 and 3 in opening a zero-balance account with a nationalized bank and/or post office so that the compensation amount can be transferred directly to said bank accounts.

3.4 He states that however despite the best endeavour made by the Petitioner in compliance of order dated 30.01.2025, he could not assist Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in opening their bank accounts as the mandatory documents required for opening an account are not available with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3.5 He states that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in cash have already been paid over to Respondent No. 3 as Respondent no. 2 has been taken ill. He states that the Petitioner be permitted to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1 lakh in cash to Respondent No.3.

4. In addition, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that he confirms that Responde