Rajinder Kaur vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 42 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        Crl.M.C. No. 3990/2009

                               Date of Order: 7th January 2010

#      RAJINDER KAUR                         ..... Petitioner
!                              Through:  Mr.     R.S.    Malik     and
                               Mr.Ashok Ahlawat, Advs.

                         versus

$      STATE                                   ..... Respondent
^                              Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP with
                               SI Devinder Singh, P.S. Rajinder
                               Nagar.


*      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

       1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
               may be allowed to see the judgment?               No

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

       3.      Whether the judgment should be
               reported in the Digest?                           Yes


: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing FIR No. 186/2005 registered at Police

Station Rajinder Nagar under Sections 279/338 of IPC. The FIR

in this case was lodged by one Matloob, who alleged that while

he was driving a motorcycle, he was hit by car No. PB-10Y-2589,

which was being driven by a girl.

2. A perusal of the charge sheet and statements of witnesses

recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

copies of which have been placed on record by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, shows that the complainant Matloob

was the only witness who could have proved the alleged criminal

rashness and/or negligence on the part of the petitioner, who is

alleged to be the driver of the car that had hit the complainant.

3. The complainant Matloob has since died, on account of

injuries sustained by him in some other accident in respect of

which FIR No. 33/2009 was registered at Police Station Delhi

Cantt. On 23rd November 2009 statements of Smt. Husna and

Ms. Reshma, daughters of deceased Matloob and Sh. Parvez

Khan, son of deceased Matloob, were recorded in this case.

They confirmed that their father had met with an accident in the

year 2009. That accident was reported vide FIR No. 33/2009

registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt under Sections 279/304-

A of IPC. They further confirmed that their father did not die on

account of the injuries sustained in the accident reported vide

FIR No. 186/2005 lodged at Police Station Rajinder Nagar. This

was further confirmed in the report filed by SHO Police Station

Delhi Cantt, on 25th November 2009.

4. The children of deceased Matloob have compromised with

the petitioner and have received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from

her. This includes a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid to

them before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They have

requested that FIR No. 186/2005 lodged at Police Station

Rajinder Nagar and the proceedings arising therefrom be

quashed.

5. In 'Jagdish Channana and Ors v. State of Haryana',

AIR 2008 SC 1968, an FIR was registered in Sonepat under

Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472 and 474 read with

Section 34 of IPC. During pendency of these proceedings the

parties entered into a compromise and one of the terms of the

compromise was that the proceedings pending in the court

would be withdrawn, compromised or quashed, as the case may

be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing that in the light of the

compromise, it was unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in

the matter and also noticing that the dispute was purely

personal one and no public policy was involved in the

transactions that had been entered into between the parties,

held that continuing with the proceedings would be a futile

exercise and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings.

6. Considering the fact that deceased Matloob was the only

witness cited by the prosecution to prove the alleged criminal

rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner, the

prosecution of the petitioner is unlikely to result into her

conviction. The case is therefore, squarely covered by the above

referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It does not

make good sense to subject the petitioner to trial, in a case of

this nature, when even the prosecution does not expect a result

favourable to it, at the end of the trial. Holding trial and thereby

wasting public resources, including precious time of the Court,

in a case involving a relatively minor offence, with no reasonable

prospect of conviction, will be an exercise in futility, which our

Courts, already overburdened with huge backlog of cases, can

hardly afford to undertake. Yet another consideration in this

regard is that the offence under Section 338 of IPC was

compoundable by the deceased injured, with the permission of

the Court. Hence, no useful purpose would be served from

continuing the criminal proceedings that were initiated by the

deceased. Moreover, the children of the deceased injured have

compromised with the petitioner and have been duly

compensated by her.

7. Hence, FIR No. 186/2005 lodged at Police Station Rajinder

Nagar under Sections 279/338 of IPC and the proceedings

arising therefrom, which are stated to be pending in the Court of

Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi are

hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C. No. 3990/2009 stands disposed of.

Dasti.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 07, 2010 Ag