Lalit Beniwal vs State & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3853 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        CRL.M.C. No.149/2010

                                                   Decided on 18.08.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :
LALIT BENIWAL                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through : Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate
                         along with petitioner in person.

                   versus

STATE & ORS.                                            ..... Respondents
                         Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
                         Respondents No.1 & 2 in person


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No.
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No.
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.275/2006, lodged by

respondent No.3/complainant against the petitioner under Sections

279/337/307/506 IPC registered with PS Saraswati Vihar.

2. The subject matter of the FIR is a complaint received from

Sh.Suhaib Ahmed/respondent No.3, employed with FRRO, Delhi Police. The

complainant stated that on 13.3.2006, he was accompanied by the

respondent No.2 and Constable Pawan Kumar and after finishing his duties,

they got down from the bus at the Deepali Chowk. While crossing the road

to access his two wheeler parked at Shakti Vihar Chowki, the petitioner was

found to be driving a Santro Car in a rash and negligent manner and while

driving down from Peera Garhi Chowk, his vehicle hit the respondent No.2.

When the car of the petitioner stopped at the red light, the complainant and

the respondent No.2 admonished the petitioner, whereupon he misbehaved

with them and upon the signal turning green, the petitioner crossed over

and turned back on the same road and tried to run down the complainant

and the respondent No.2 who fell down due to the impact of the car. At the

same time, the accused drove away the vehicle towards Rani Bagh. As a

result of falling on the road, the respondent No.2 suffered a fracture on his

left hand. Upon receiving the complaint, the police authorities carried out

necessary investigations and now the case is stated to be at the stage of

recording of evidence of the prosecution.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of the incident,

the petitioner was very young and only 19 years of age and is remorseful for

his conduct and the high handed manner in which he treated the respondent

No.2 and the complainant/respondent No.3. He further states that

originally, the FIR was lodged under Sections 279 & 337 IPC. However, later

on, the provisions of Sections 307 & 506 IPC were added and that in fact,

there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit any culpable

homicide and that no injury was actually caused on any vital part of the

respondents and as such, no offence is made out under Section 307 IPC. He

further states that after the aforesaid incident, the petitioner has not been

involved in any other incident of road rage and nor has he committed any

other offence and now the petitioner is in the third year of graduation. He

further states that the petitioner has undergone judicial custody for a period

of 20 days and is repentant for his conduct. The petitioner, who is present

in Court, volunteers to compensate the respondents No.2 & 3 by paying

them a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, and further, agrees to abide by any other

term that may be imposed on him.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that having regard to the

conduct of the petitioner, it is an appropriate case where heavy costs ought

to be imposed on the petitioner for his conduct so that such an act is not

repeated in future and the same is a deterrent and further that the petitioner

should be made to do some social service at least for a period of one year so

as to reform himself.

5. The complainant who is present in the court, has no objection to

the petition being allowed as he states that the petitioner has expressed

remorse and has approached him with the request not to ruin his career by

insisting upon prosecuting the FIR. The respondents No.2 and 3 also accept

the compensation offered by the petitioner.

6. Road rage appears to be the norm of the day in the city of Delhi.

Not only do a number of drivers show scant regard for the pedestrians, but

they indulge in traffic violations with impunity. This is yet another example

of complete lack of discipline on the road shown by the petitioner which is

compounded by his attempt to ram his vehicle in sudden anger into to the

complainants. However, contrition has been expressed by the petitioner,

and the complainants, looking at his young age, do not wish any further

action to be taken on the FIR. Further, the petitioner has offered to pay

costs and agreed to render social service to show that he is genuinely

repentant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

petition is allowed. FIR No.275/2006 and all the proceedings arising

therefrom, stand quashed, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The amount of Rs.25,000/- volunteered to be paid by the

petitioner to each of the respondents No.2 and 3, shall be paid within two

weeks from today. Copy of proof of payment shall be furnished to the

learned APP for the State within the same period.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs with

the DCP, Traffic, Police Hqrs., within two weeks. The said amount shall be

utilized by the Department for the purpose of the upkeep and maintenance

of the Traffic Training Parks in the city. Copy of proof of deposit of the

aforesaid costs and proof of utilization of the funds by the Department shall

be furnished to the learned APP for the State within the same period.

(iii) Additionally, costs of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid by the

petitioner, which shall be deposited in the following manner:

(a) Rs.25,000/- in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, to

be deposited in the Juvenile Justice Fund.

(b) Rs.25,000/- as costs in favour of the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee.

(c) Rs.25,000/- as costs to be deposited in favour of the Delhi

Police Welfare Committee.

(d) Rs.25,000/- as costs in favour of the Delhi High Court Library

Fund.

The aforesaid costs shall be paid by the petitioner within four

weeks, while furnishing proof of payment to the learned APP for the State

within the same period.

(iv) Lastly, the petitioner shall render social service in an NGO,

`Prayas' situated in Jahangir Puri, Delhi for a period one year, by visiting the

Centre, for a period of one hour, once a week and a report shall be

submitted by the said NGO on a bi-monthly basis, to the SHO of the area,

confirming the fact that the petitioner has been duly complying with the

order. If the SHO of the area finds from the report of the NGO that the

petitioner is absenting himself and/or not doing meaningful work, he shall

bring the same to the notice of the APP, who may approach the Court for

recalling the order passed today.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

                                                            HIMA KOHLI,J
AUGUST       18, 2010
mk