Delhi High Court
Kanwar Singh vs State & Anr. on 26 May, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : MAY 26, 2016
+ CRL.M.C.3510/2015
KANWAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Manohar Kumar, T.N.Tripathi and
Ms.Prerana Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP.
Mr.Mahender Kumar, Advocate, for
respondent Nos.2 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.210/12 under Sections 279/304A
IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines. It is stated that the matter has
been settled with the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Counsel for the petitioner urged to quash the FIR in
question as the matter has been settled with the victim's wife and she has
agreed to get `1,00,000/-. She has already received compensation of
`30,65,300/- from M.A.C.T.
3. It is pertinent to note that similar petition (Crl.M.C.514/2015)
was filed for quashing of the FIR in question by the petitioner and it was
dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 10.02.2015 by the Coordinate
Bench. The petitioner has not furnished any reasons to present second
petition on similar grounds without any change in circumstances.
Apparently, the petitioner intended to get chance before some other Bench to
get the FIR in question quashed on the basis of the settlement.
4. The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 279/304A IPC since
2012. Allegations in the FIR are that while driving the vehicle in rash and
negligent manner, he first struck against one Mahindra Car and thereafter hit
a scooterist and caused injuries as a result of which the scooterist expired in
the hospital. Compensation of `30,65,300/- has been awarded by the
M.A.C.T. to the legal heirs of the deceased. In the instant case, the
petitioner impleaded only respondent No.2 Neelam Devi, deceased victim's
wife as a party. Subsequently, amended memo of parties impleading other
legal heirs of the deceased had been filed.
5. Memorandum of understanding reveals that the matter has been
settled only with Neelam Devi, victim's wife.
6. Allegations against the petitioner are very serious and offence
under Section 279 IPC is against the public at large; it cannot be
compounded by the victim's wife. On payment of paltry amount of
`1,00,000/-, the petitioner can't be absolved of commission of serious
offence.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity
of the offence, I find no merit in the present petition for quashing of the FIR
in question merely on the basis of settlement with the victim's wife.
8. The petition is dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the
Court concerned for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2016
sa
