Delhi High Court
Himanshu Dawer vs State & Anr on 11 July, 2014
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2974/2014
HIMANSHU DAWER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for State
Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Adv. for R-2
SI Mukesh, PS Paharganj
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. NO. 10305/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just
exceptions.
The application stands disposed off.
CRL.M.C. 2974/2014
1. This petition has been moved by Himanshu Dawer, who is
stated to be the accused in FIR No.164/2011 dated 03.11.2011,
registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, under Section 304 IPC.
2. It is alleged that the FIR came to be registered at an
information received by the police that one construction worker was
stuck underneath a wall, which had fallen upon him in the course of
excavation of a plot; which excavation was being carried out without
any safety precautions, and without valid permission. As a result
thereof, the petitioner and another co-accused, Gurbachan Singh,
were proceeded with, and that a notice has been issued to the
petitioner under Section 304-A IPC on 21.02.2014.
3. It is further stated that the matter has been amicably settled
between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who happens to be the
father of the deceased worker whose body was recovered from the
site.
4. Issue notice.
5. Counsel for the respondent/State, as well as the second
respondent, accepts notice.
6. Respondent No. 2, Shri Haribol Shah, is also present in person,
and is identified by his counsel.
7. A compromise deed dated 01.07.2014 executed between the
second respondent and the petitioner has also been annexed to the
petition, wherein respondent No. 2 has stated that he does not wish to
pursue the proceedings against the petitioner, and that he has settled
all his claims against him. He also states that he has received a total
amount of Rs. 3 Lacs as compensation from the petitioner in full and
final settlement. Counsel for respondent No.2 also approbates this
position, and prays that the relief sought in the matter be granted.
8. Counsel for the State also states that under the circumstances,
no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter
which will only result in increasing the pendency before the Courts,
especially in view of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme court in
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also because
of the fact that the matter against the co-accused, Shri Gurbachan
Singh, has also been laid to rest after admitting him to plea of
bargaining with the consent of the Court.
9. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for
the proceedings to be brought to an end.
10. Consequently, FIR No.164/2011 dated 03.11.2011, registered
at Police Station Pahar Ganj, under Section 304 IPC, and the
proceedings emanating there from are quashed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
(Judge)
JULY 11, 2014
rd
