Delhi High Court
Surender Chhabra vs State & Anr on 22 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2764/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 22nd December, 2011
SURENDER CHHABRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Satendra
Singh and Mr. M.V. Gupta, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
ASI Rajmal Singh, PS-Paharganj, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 23.08.2011, this Court has passed the following
order:
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the FIR
No.171/2009 was registered against the petitioner under
Section 304A Indian Penal Code at police station Pahar
Ganj.
2. Further submitted that the respondent No.2 had filed
a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act,
Central District, New Delhi on 01.11.2011 and thereafter
a compromise deed dated 18.01.2011 was executed
between the parties which led to the Tribunal passing an
order dated 18.01.2011 whereby a compensatory amount
of ì 4,42,740/- was awarded.
3. Learned APP for the State submits that since the
order of the Tribunal is not on record, therefore, she
cannot argue whether the present FIR should be quashed
or not.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he will
file the orders passed by the Tribunal.
5. Respondent No.2 is identified by the IO of the case
ASI Rajan Singh, police station Pahar Ganj.
6. Since both the parties have agreed for a compromise
and prayed to quash the present FIR. At this stage,
without observing the outcome of the petition, however in
the event of quashing of the FIR, the presence of the
respondent No.2 would not be required because he is
personally present today in Court and duly identified by
the IO of the case.
7. Respondent No.2 is present on a wheel chair as his
leg is fractured, therefore, keeping his medical status into
view, I dispense his personal appearance on the next date
of hearing.
8. Petitioner is further directed to file the certified
copies of the order passed by the Tribunal within a
fortnight.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Certified copy of the order dated
01.02.2011 has been filed wherein it is recorded that agreement to pay
compensation is said to have been reached between applicant /
claimant i.e. Sh. Ram Prakash and respondent / management i.e. M/s.
Krishna Cottage for an amount of Rs.4,42,740 in this Hon'ble Court.
3. Mr. Lalit Kumar, ld. Counsel for the petitioner on instruction
further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.1 Lac to the father
of the deceased / respondent no. 2. To this effect, the petitioner has
issued cheque bearing no. 064485 dated 22.12.2011 Allahabad Bank
for an amount of Rs.1 Lac to the father of the respondent no. 2.
4. Though the offence committed is under Section 304 (A) Indian
Penal Code, 1860, however, if I do not allow this petition, then it
would be great injustice for the family of the deceased as there is no
help for the father of the deceased / respondent no. 2.
5. The petitioner is directed to hand over the said cheque to the
respondent no. 2 / father of the deceased under acknowledgment.
Proof of the same shall be placed on record.
6. In the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 171/2009,
registered at PS-Paharganj with emanating proceedings thereto.
7. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 2764/2011 is allowed on the above
terms.
8. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
jg
