Rajeev Dhanraj vs State & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4649 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                   Crl.M.C.4153/2011 & Crl.M.A. 19295/2011


                                    Decided on :     6th August, 2012


RAJEEV DHANRAJ                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through:   Mr. S.K. Sahijpa, Adv.

                          versus

STATE & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents
                     Through:   Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.265/2003 under Sections 279/304-A

IPC registered by PS:Mandir Marg, New Delhi on the

ground that the petitioner and the respondent no.2 have

arrived at a settlement, in terms of which the petitioner

is purported to have paid a sum of ` 8,00,000/- to the

respondent no.2 towards the full and final settlement of

her entire claim, both with regard to MACT claim as well

as for compensation for the criminal case.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the

respondent no.8, Rajeev Rana, lodged an FIR No.

265/2003 under Sections 279/304-A IPC at PS:Mandir

Marg, New Delhi regarding a road accident at Wellington

Crescent near Shehenshah Restaurant, New Delhi in

which one Rajender Prasad Sati was injured and he

succumbed to injuries later on. The petitioner was a

minor and was driving the offending vehicle bearing

registration no.DL9CA-0798. On account of the aforesaid

accident, the respondent no.2, widow of late Rajender

Prasad, not only lodged an FIR under Sections 279/304-A

IPC, but also filed a case for damages before the Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal. Respondent nos.3 to 7 are the

other legal heirs of deceased Rajender Prasad. The Motor

Accident Claim was settled between the parties, as has

been recorded in the order dated 27.11.2008, and the

petitioner had paid a sum of `8,00,000/- towards the full

and final settlement of the entire claim of the respondent

for motor accident claim as well as for the criminal case.

The statements of Rama Devi and that of Rajeev Dhanraj

in this regard were also recorded.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner since the parties have arrived at a compromise

and an amount of ` 8,00,000/- has already been paid to

the widow of the deceased for her own benefit and for

the benefit of the other legal heirs, therefore, the

aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings, which are

pending in the competent court, may be quashed. It has

further been stated by the learned counsel that the delay

in filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

occasioned because of the fact that the petitioner was

trying to locate the respondent no.2, but despite his

sincere efforts, he could not trace her. It was urged since

the respondent no.2 has received the entire claim

amount, the continuance of these proceedings against

the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and,

therefore, the same be quashed.

4. The learned APP has contended that a perusal of the

order dated 27.11.2008 would show that an amount of

` 8,00,000/- was paid voluntarily to the respondent no.2

towards the full and final settlement of her claim, only

with regard to motor accident claim and not for the

criminal case. The attention of the Court was drawn to

various documents in this regard.

5. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has raised an

objection in this regard and has contended that a perusal

of the order dated 27.11.2008 would clearly show that

an amount of ` 8,00,000/- has been received by the

respondent no.2 on account of the settlement of the

motor accident claim as well as the criminal case and,

therefore, insists that the FIR and the consequent

proceedings be quashed.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

respective sides and gone through the record.

7. I find merit in the contention of the learned APP that a

perusal of the order dated 27.11.2008, a copy of which

has been placed at page nos.16-18 of the Paper Book,

clearly shows that the present petitioner has voluntarily

paid a sum of `8,00,000/- towards the full and final

settlement of the entire claim of the respondent no.2, so

far as the MACT case is concerned and not with regard to

criminal case. This payment could not be construed as a

compromise which will encompass within itself the

settlement of the criminal offence also. The issue

regarding the non settlement of the criminal offence is

further fortified, inasmuch as the respondent no.2 did not

appear in Court to support this contention of the

petitioner. The reliance of the petitioner on the order

passed by the learned Trial Court about the compromise

purported to have been recorded between the parties is

of no consequence unless and until the respondent no.2

specifically agrees to the quashing of the FIR.

8. The offence of causing death by rash and negligent

driving is a very serious offence, inasmuch as persons,

without proper driving skills and without adhering to the

traffic rules, are taking innocent lives. In the instant

case, it has come on record that the petitioner, on the

date of accident, was driving the vehicle which caused

the accident, despite the fact that he was a minor. I,

therefore, feel that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR

and the consequent proceedings. Accordingly, the

present petition, in my view, is totally misconceived and

deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

August 06, 2012 tp