Delhi High Court
M/S Mascon vs Paramila Devi And Anr. on 24 February, 2016
45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.02.2016
WP(CRL) 617/2016
M/S MASCON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Arjun Bobde, Ms Richa Relwan
and Ms Sanyya Pawar, Advocates.
Versus
PARAMILA DEVI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Srilina Roy, Advocate for
Ms Nandita Rao, Addl. Standing
Counsel (Crl.).
SI Lokendar Tyagi, PS- New Friends
Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing of FIR No.20/2016 under Sections 288/304A IPC registered at
Police Station- New Friends Colony, Delhi.
2. The subject FIR came to be registered on account of the accidental
death of one Bachan Dev Manjhi while working at a construction site at D-
1032, New Friends Colony, Delhi. The deceased was employed as a Beldar
in the petitioner-partnership firm and is stated to have fallen from the second
floor of the building. The cause of the death was opined to be blunt force
trauma as a result of fall.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner states that without
prejudice to their rights and contentions that they are not named in the
subject FIR and the present is not a case where any negligence has been
alleged against them, they approached Paramila Devi, the widow of the
deceased Bachan Dev Manjhi so as to provide succour to the bereaved
family in their time of need. The deceased Bachan Dev Manjhi is survived
by his aged father and mother as well as his widow and four minor children.
4. The petitioner on the one hand and the legal heirs of the deceased on
the other have entered into an amicable settlement which will enure to the
benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased. The compensation received by the
legal heirs of the deceased finds mention in the affidavits filed on behalf of
Paramila Devi, the widow of the deceased, Mahesh Manjhi, the father of the
deceased and Runa Devi, the mother of the deceased. The said deponents
who are present in court today and have been identified by the IO in the
subject FIR state that they have received a sum of Rs.2 lakh as compensation
from the petitioner.
5. There is no gainsaying the circumstance that the deceased did not
belong to an affluent section of society. Further it is an admitted position that
the deceased was the sole breadwinner in the family. The compensation, so
to speak, is like manna from heaven for the family of deceased in their hour
of need and offers them sustenance.
6. In view of the foregoing, in order to obviate the necessity for the
family of the deceased to institute and prosecute a long drawn-out
proceeding to receive just compensation and in terms of the compensation
agreement entered into between the petitioner on the one hand and the legal
heirs of the deceased on the other, in my view it would be just and proper to
give this court's imprimatur to the compensation settlement.
7. Resultantly, the FIR No.20/2016 under Sections 288/304A IPC
registered at Police Station- New Friends Colony, Delhi is hereby set aside
and quashed qua the petitioner subject to their paying a further sum of
Rupees one lakh to Paramila Devi, the widow of the deceased Bachan Dev
Manjhi, during the course of the week. A copy of the receipt thereof shall be
provided to the IO in the subject FIR.
8. With the above directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2016
mk
