Delhi High Court
Moinuddin Sabri vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 22 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4331/2011
% Judgment delivered on : 22nd December, 2011
MOINUDDIN SABRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.
Mr. Chetan Chawla, Adv. for R2 to R7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 19827-28/2011
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 4331/2011
1 Notice issued.
2 Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for State accepts notice on
3 Mr. Chetan Chawla, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondents No.2 to 7.
4 Mr. Vineet Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that a very unfortunate incidence took place on 27.11.2011 at about
2.15pm, when a steam boiler bursted and due to which one precious
life of a poor worker namely, Aslam working there was lost and two
other workers namely Pankaj and Azhar were injured. Due to said
incidence, a case FIR No. 399 dated 27.11.2011 was registered under
Sections 287/337/304 A Indian Penal Code, 1860 on complaint of
R7/Pankaj at Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
5 Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the
petitioner, the father and family of deceased and injured have settled
the matter qua the aforesaid FIR on the following settlement.:-
The petitioner has agreed to pay the compensation of:-
(i) Rs.5,25,000/- to the family of deceased.
(ii) Rs.2,000/- each to both the injured person.
6 Respondents No. 2 to 7 are personally present in the court today.
They are duly identified by their counsel Mr. Chetan Chawla,
Advocate. They all are satisfied with the amount received.
7 Learned APP for State submits that though the matter has been
settled between the parties but keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner is a person of means, compensation amount may be
enhanced as the above mentioned amount of compensation is too
meagre.
8 I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State.
9 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions
submits that petitioner is ready to further pay an amount of Rs.1lacs
more to the family of deceased. In addition thereto, the petitioner is
ready to provide employment to one of the brother of the deceased on
the salary last drawn by deceased.
10 Further submits that the petitioner shall pay Rs.25,000/- each to
both the injured persons in addition to earlier settled amount of
Rs.2,000/-. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that
both the injured are still working with the petitioner.
11 The petitioner has given Rs. 25,000/- each to both the injured
persons namely Pankaj and Azhar in the court itself. They have
accepted the same without any protest, rather they seem to be very
happy.
12 The petitioner has undertaken to pay Rs.1lacs more to the family
of deceased within a week.
13 The proof of payment of Rs.1lacs in addition to the settled
amount to the family of deceased shall be placed on record by the
petitioner within a week.
14 In the circumstances, if I do not allow the petition, it would be
injustice to the family of the deceased. Therefore for the substantial
justice it would be appropriate to quash the aforesaid FIR.
15 Keeping in view the above discussion into view and in the
interest of justice, I quash the FIR No.399/2011 registered at P.S. Hauz
Khas, New Delhi.
16 Accordingly, Criminal M.C. 4331/2011 is allowed.
17 Dasti to both the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
j
