Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 6402/2019 & CRL.M.A. 42481/2019

Reserved on

: 21.03.2022

Date of Decision : 05.08.2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

JASPRIYA BHASIN

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anshul Sehgal, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State

with SI Surender, P.S. Vasant Kunj North.

Mr. Sanjeev Malik, Advocate for Complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on

behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 104/2018 registered

under Sections 279/337 IPC at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, as

well as the consequent proceedings including filing of chargesheet.

2. Although initially the grounds urged in support of quashing of the FIR

were limited to the settlement arrived at between the parties, during the

course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative

also addressed submissions on the merits of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised doubts on the credibility and

reliability of the statement of the alleged eye-witness/Bhim Sen. It was

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002956

Page 2 of 15

contended that even though the said witness claimed to be working near the

site of accident, neither the investigating officer made any local enquiry nor

the said witness came forward. Rather, his statement came to be recorded

later, after a period of 38 days, that too under mysterious circumstances. He

further argued that on reading of the entire prosecution case, the ingredients

of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Naresh Giri v. State of

M.P. reported as (2008) 1 SCC 791, Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka

reported as (2007) 3 SCC 474 and State of Karnataka v. Satish reported as

(1998) 8 SCC 493 and the decisions of this Court in Rawal Singh & Ors. v.

State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 2511/2022, Bhavna Arora v. State of Delhi & Anr.,

CRL.M.C. 1836/2022 and Birender @ Virender Ram v. State & Anr.,

CRL.M.C. 3459/2021.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the

present FIR having been registered under Section 304A IPC and the alleged

offence being serious in nature, the case cannot be quashed merely on the

basis of settlement between the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the

material placed on record.

7. The FIR in question came to be registered on 01.03.2018 on the

complaint of sister of the deceased, who stated that though a resident of

Jaipur, Rajasthan, she had come to Delhi for her medical treatment and was

staying with her brother (the deceased). On 01.03.2018 at 7:30 a.m., while

she alongwith her brother was crossing the Nelson Mandela Road towards

Vasant Vihar, a Car came at speed from the Vasant Kunj side & hit her

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002956

Page 3 of 15

brother. As a result of the impact, he fell down and the Driver of the

offending Car ran away. After some time, a CATS Ambulance came at the

spot, whereafter her brother was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre Hospital.

Initially, the case was registered under Sections 279/337 IPC,

however, later on receipt of information regarding demise of the

injured/Rajpal Singh Rawat on 14.03.2018, Section 304A IPC was added to

the case.

8. Before proceeding further, it is deemed expedient to recapitulate the

scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as repeatedly

expounded by the Supreme Court, including in State of Haryana and Others

v. Bhajan Lal and Others reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where the

parameters