Delhi High Court
Hitachi Payment Services ... vs State And Ors. on 23 March, 2018
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : MARCH 23, 2018
+ W.P.(Crl.)870/2018 & Crl.M.A.5444/2018
HITACHI PAYMENT SERVICES PVT.LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through :
versus
STATE AND ORS. ..... RespondentS
Through : Mr.Ranbir Singh Kundu, ASC with
Mr.Premsagar Pal and Ms.Suman
Saharan, Advocates.
SI Ranvir Singh, PS Burari.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR
No.664/2014 under Section 304-A IPC registered at Police Station
Burari. Status report is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the matter has been
settled with the legal heirs of the deceased. No useful purpose will be
served to continue with the proceedings before the trial court. `6.5 lacs
has been agreed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and they
have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Reliance is placed on
Smt.Anita Maria Dias & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. in
Crl.A.No.199/2018 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.978/2017
@ Diary No.40579/2017] and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have examined the file. The occurrence took place on
09.08.2014. A charge-sheet has since been filed against one Rakesh
Singh for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC.
4. The present petition for quashing of FIR has been filed by the
petitioner-Hitachi Payment Services Pvt.Ltd. through its authorized
representative-Hayat Ali. The matter is stated to have been settled by
the petitioner with the legal heirs of the deceased.
5. Since the settlement has not taken place with the accused Rakesh
Singh, the FIR in question cannot be quashed qua him. The settlement
is between Hayat Ali-the authorized representative of the petitioner and
legal heirs of the deceased Durgpal. The accused in the FIR is not a
party to the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.03.2018.
6. Present petition has now been filed by the petitioner for quashing
of the FIR on the basis of settlement. The allegations against the
accused Rakesh Singh in the FIR/charge-sheet have not been admitted
in the petition. The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner was not at all
at fault in the incident and there was no negligence on their part.
Various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution
have been raised in the present petition. It is, however, stated that due
to sympathy with the legal heirs of the deceased, `6.5 lacs are being
paid in full and final settlement of the claims.
7. In my considered view mere payment of `6.5 lacs to the legal
heirs of the deceased due to humanitarian approach is not a ground to
quash the FIR in question against the accused Rakesh Singh. The
prosecution has relied upon the report of Suresh Kumar Bukka,
Assistant Electrical Inspector dated 17.11.2014 whereby prima facie it
is observed that necessary precautions were not taken as a result of
which the accident in which a young man lost his life, occurred. It was
observed as under:
"At the time of inspection, the following provisions of
the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to
Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 had not
been found complied with:-
1. The insulation resistance of electrical installation
of the said ATM centre was found to be so low as to
prevent safe use of energy in contravention of the
provisions of regulation 33 91) (ii) of the said
regulations in the following respect:
(a) The insulation resistance value of the
electrical installation of the said ATM centre
was found less that 1 MEGA OHM.
2. The electrical installation had not been found
installed and maintained in such a manner as to ensure
safety of human beings in contravention of the
provisions of regulation 12(1) of the said regulations."
8. Allegations against the accused Rakesh Singh under Section 304-
A IPC are serious and grave. On payment of `6.5 lacs by the company
to which he was attached is not a sufficient ground for quashing the
FIR. The observation of this Court in Bhajan Lal Sharma Vs.State
(Govt.of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.2016 (158) DRJ 493 are relevant to
note:
"32 In my view, quashing the FIR in question at this
stage would certainly sent a very wrong signal not only
to the petitioner, but the whole society at large and
particularly to other builders, contractors and other
agencies engaged in undertaking construction work,
that even if they are grossly negligent in taking
preventive measures so as to prevent predictable
accidents-which may lead to serious injury and even
loss of life, they could get away by paying some
compensation to the heirs of the injured/deceased. In
fact, such like contractors/ builders/agencies may find
it more economical to risk the lives of their workforce,
and in the eventuality of an accident occurring, to pay
compensation, than to undertake all safety measures
which, if taken, would prevent such accidents in the
first place.
33.As observed by the Supreme Court in Sheonandan
Paswan (supra), criminal proceedings are not a
proceeding for vindication of private grievance. They
are initiated for the punishment of the offender in the
interest of the society. It is for maintaining stability
and orderliness in the society that certain acts are
constituted offences and the right given to any citizen to
set the machinery of criminal law into motion for the
purpose of brining the offender to book.
34.In A.R.Antuly Vs.Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr.,
MANU/SC/0082/1984: (1984) 2 SCC 500, the Supreme
Court held that punishment of the offender in society is
in the interest of the society. It is one of the objects of
the penal statues enacted for the larger good of the
society.
35. I am of the view that quashing of criminal
proceedings in the present case would create and set an
unhealthy precedent, and sent wrong signals to the
society at large.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no sufficient
ground to quash the FIR; it is dismissed. All pending application(s)
also stand disposed of.
10. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits of
the case.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
MARCH 23, 2018/sa
