Delhi High Court
Rajiv Chopra vs State on 1 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P.No.57/2012 & Crl.M.B.No.226/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 01st March, 2012
RAJIV CHOPRA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Rebecca M John, Mr.Vishal
Gosain, Mr.Abhishek Batra & Mr.Kushdeep
Gaur, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State
with ASI Shamshudin, police station Defence
Colony, New Delhi in person.
Shri Mukand Lal, Smt.Basanti Devi, parents
with Shri Prakash Chand, younger brother of
deceased in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
judgment dated 14.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 17.09.2011
whereby he has been sentenced to undergo SI for six months with fine
of `1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Further sentenced to undergo SI for one year with fine of
`1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved, the applicant/convict assailed the aforesaid
judgment and order on sentence before the Sessions Court; whereupon
vide order dated 20.01.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi
allowed partially and maintained the conviction; however reduced the
sentence from one year to nine months only under Section 304A Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
3. Ms.Rebecca M. John, learned counsel for petitioner, on
instructions, submits that petitioner is not challenging the impugned
judgment dated 14.09.2011 whereby he was held guilty and convicted.
However, she has prayed for modification of order on sentence dated
17.09.2011 passed by learned Trial Court and subsequently modified
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 20.01.2012 to
the extent of period already undergone.
4. She further submits that in the instant case, one precious life has
been lost. It was a sad accident. The deceased belonged to a poor
family. She does not dispute this fact. Therefore, petitioner wants to
compensate the parents of deceased for a sum of ` 8.00 Lacs; so that
the parents may live comfortably at their fag end.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case of Shiji @
Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided
on 14.11.2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the cases of non-
compoundable nature can be compounded, certainly not after the
conviction observing as under:-
„...... That being so, continuance of the prosecution where
the complainant is not ready to support the allegations
which are now described by her as arising out of some
"misunderstanding and misconception"; will be a futile
exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the
two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the
complainant, are also no longer supportive of the
prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings
is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482
Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably
invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process
of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the
Courts below.‟
6. Vide order dated 03.02.2012, SHO, police station Defence
Colony, New Delhi was directed to ensure the presence of father,
mother and wife of the deceased.
7. Consequently, Shri Mukand Lal, Smt.Basanti Devi, parents and
Mr.Prakash Chand, younger brother of the deceased, all residents of
Village Ajoli Talli, PO Ajoli Malli, District Almorha, Uttaranchal have
appeared.
8. They informed that deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, only
they have appeared; and accepted the offer advanced by learned
counsel for petitioner.
9. Learned APP for State on the other hand, submits that though a
precious life has been taken by the act of petitioner, which has been
duly proved during trial and affirmed in appeal before learned
Additional Sessions Judge, however, since petitioner is compensating
the parents of deceased, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, he has no objection to the prayer of
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, two cheques bearing No.506309 for ` 5.00/- Lacs
and No.506310 for ` 3.00/- Lacs both dated 01.03.2012 drawn on Citi
Bank in favour of Shri Mukand Lal, father of deceased have been
handed over to parents of deceased today in the Court. Both the said
cheques have been issued by Mr.Raman Kapur, brother-in-law of
petitioner.
11. Here I make it clear that both the cheques have been issued by
Mr.Raman Kapur, brother-in-law of petitioner in favour of Mr.Mukand
Lal. Mr.Raman Kapur is present in the Court, who stated that both the
cheques would be realised on presentation and have been issued on the
instructions of Mr. Rajiv Chopra, petitioner herein, who is his brother-
in-law. Mr. Raman Kapur has assured this Court that both the cheques
shall be honoured by his banker, failing which he shall be liable for the
action in accordance with law.
12. The parents of deceased are hereby directed to keep the amount
of `8.00/- Lacs in the form of joint FDR (in the name of Sh. Mukand
Lal and Smt. Basanti Devi) with option of 'Either or survival' initially
for a period of five years in their bank account maintained in State
Bank of India, Kashipur Ramnagar Branch, Uttaranchal and annual
interest accrued thereon shall be utilised by the parents of deceased as
per their daily need.
13. In case of any financial exigencies, the parents of deceased shall
move an application to the concerned Bank at Kashipur Ramnagar
Branch, and may withdraw the maximum amount of `25,000/- once
in a year only.
14. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the Shiji @ Pappu
(Supra) while maintaining the conviction of petitioner, the order on
sentence dated 17.09.2011 passed by learned Trial Court and modified
by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.01.2012, are
hereby modified to the extent of period already undergone by
petitioner i.e. from 20.01.2012 to 04.02.2012.
15. Consequently, Criminal Revision Petition No.57/2012 is
partially allowed and stands disposed of.
16. In view of above order, Criminal M.B.No.226/2012 does not
require any further adjudication and stands disposed of. Bail bonds
are cancelled and surety of petitioner stands discharged.
17. A copy of this order be sent to concerned Branch Manager, State
Bank of India, Kashipur Ramnagar Branch, Uttaranchal for
compliance.
18. Copy of order be also given to both the parties.
19. No order as to costs.
20. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 01, 2012
Mk
