Delhi High Court
Murlidhar Pandey vs The State (Gnct) & Ors. on 12 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 12, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 88/2015 & Crl. M.A.No. 383/2015
MURLIDHAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Narender Bhandari, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( GNCT) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Varun Dalal
Mr. Pankaj Walia, Advocate with
respondents No. 2 to 4 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 427/2014, under Section 304A of the IPC,
registered at police station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi is sought on the basis of
affidavit of respondents No. 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of deceased.
The unfortunate incident is of 26th April, 2014 when the deceased had
fallen into a manhole which was filled up with the mobil oil in the factory
of petitioner/accused.
Notice.
Mr. Parveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State accepts notice and Mr. Pankaj Walia, Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4.
Crl. M.C. No.88/2015 Page 1
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State
submits that respondents No.2 to 4 are present in the Court and they have
been identified to be the legal heirs of deceased by Mr. Pankaj Walia,
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 and SI Varun
Dalal, Investigating Officer of this case. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that investigation in this
case is almost complete.
Respondents No.2 to 4, present in the Court, submit that they have
reliably learnt that the incident in question was purely accidental and they
have been duly compensated by petitioner, who has tendered two demand
pay orders in the sum of `2,50,000/- each, bearing No. '207756' dated
12th December, 2014 and '207751' dated 1st December, 2014, both drawn
on ICICI Bank, Branch Nai Rohtak Road, Delhi. Respondents No. 2 to 4
affirm contents of their affidavits of 15th December, 2014 supporting this
petition and submit that since death of deceased was purely accidental, no
useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings
arising out the FIR in question.
In „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases
like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
Crl. M.C. No.88/2015 Page 2
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings."
In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the
aforesaid incident being purely accidental and the fact that respondent
No.2 has been duly compensated, I find that continuance of proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `50,000/- to
be deposited by petitioner with the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within
four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of deposit of
cost, FIR No. 427/2014, under Section 304A of the IPC, registered at
police station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2015
r
Crl. M.C. No.88/2015 Page 3
