Delhi High Court
Naresh Shah @ Naresh Gupta & Anr. vs State & Ors. on 25 October, 2018
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th October, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 5404/2018 and Crl.M.A.34806/2018
NARESH SHAH @ NARESH GUPTA & ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with SI Sanjeev Kumar,
PS Vivek Vihar.
R-2 & R-3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the basis of final report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of
investigation into first information report (FIR) No.354/2016 of Police
Station Vivek Vihar, the petitioners herein have been summoned by
the Metropolitan Magistrate to face prosecution on the accusations for
offences punishable under Sections 287/304-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC), the case involving the death by electrocution of
Manjre, son of Late Ganesh Shah. It is the case for the prosecution
that the deceased while being engaged as a worker by the petitioners
herein was electrocuted due to the rash or negligent acts of
commission or omission indulged in by the petitioners, they having
failed to take such order with the machinery in their possession or
under their care as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger
to human life therefrom.
2. The petitioners have approached this court by the present
petition invoking inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to seek the proceedings arising out of the said FIR to be
quashed on the basis of settlement with the third respondent, she being
the mother of the deceased. The second respondent has been added to
the fray on the ground he was the first informant of the case.
3. The respondent State resists the petition relying on the rulings
of this Court in Shivam Chauhan & Anr. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) & Anr., Crl.M.C.2759/2018, dated 05.09.2018; and Madan
Lal vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., Crl.M.C.4382/2016,
decided on 05.09.2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon decisions of
a single benches of this Court in Mahender Singh vs. State (GNCT of
Delhi) & Ors., Crl.M.C.512/2016, decided on 05.02.2016; and
Jasvinder Singh Malhotra vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,
Crl.M.C.996/2016, decided on 16.03.2016, to submit that the prayer in
the petition deserves to be accepted in view of the rulings of the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10
SCC 303; and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, which were followed in the said previous
decisions. It is his submissions, with reference to the decisions in
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur vs. Ratilal Motilal Patel, (1968)
1 SCR 455; and Union of India & Ors. vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC
589, that this court cannot take a different view.
5. In Shivam Chauhan (supra), this court had noted, inter alia, the
rulings of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh
(supra) and also a decision of a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the
Supreme Court reported as Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641.
6. Noticeably, the decision in Mahender Singh (supra) and
Jasvinder Singh Malhotra (supra) are prior to the ruling of the
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur (supra).
7. Following the decision of this court in Shivam Chauhan
(supra), similar prayer in another similarly placed petition titled
Madan Lal vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.,
Crl.M.C.4382/2016, involving offence punishable under Section
285/304-A IPC was declined by judgment dated 05.09.2018, wherein
it was observed thus:-
"5. In another similar petition concerning a case of
death by rash or negligent act (albeit by driving of a
motor vehicle on a public road) by an order passed today,
while declining to exercise the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the criminal
process, this Court taking note of the rulings of the
Supreme Court, inter alia, in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Punjab and Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others
v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641; State
of Karnataka v. Muralidhar (2009) 4 SCC 463 and
certain others, has held thus:-
"19. The offence of rash driving of a motor vehicle on
a public road is not directed against any specific
individual. It exposes other users of the road - citizens
in general - to wanton risk to their life, limb or
property. The rising fatalities on public roads bring
havoc to the victims, or their kith or kin, and create
additional burden on the State and the society at large.
Untimely loss of a precious human life not only brings
immeasurable pain and suffering to the family that is
left behind but, at times, loss of the bread earner
resultantly throwing those dependent on him virtually
on the road or at the mercy of doles of the civil society
or State. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of
Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182, "(s)uch
a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of
many others around them". Recourse to the remedy of
accident claim under the law is no solace. After-all,
the legal process invariably takes time to deliver, such
litigation being long winding and, at times, uncertain,
particularly in cases where there is absence of valid
insurance cover against third party risk. If the victim
somehow survives with injuries, the trauma or
aftermath of hurt is also not fully compensatable in
terms of money.
20. We are a society wedded to the ethos of "rule
of law". The Constitution of India guarantees to every
person on this soil the fundamental right to protection
of life (Article 21). When a person moves on the public
road in exercise of his fundamental freedom to move,
he legitimately expects the State to ensure that all
others using the public space or way respect his right
to do so without he being put to harm. It is the
obligation of the State to ensure enforcement of strict
discipline of the law. If such rights are breached, there
is corresponding obligation on the court to ensure that
consequences flowing from law follow.
21. Unlike certain other jurisdictions, our
jurisprudence does not adopt the policy of Islamic law
principle of "blood money" (Diyat) as the answer to
every wrongdoing. On the contrary, the Supreme
Court has ruled that in striking the balance to take
care of the "cry of the society" in grave crimes,
"(m)oney cannot be the oasis" [Sumer Singh vs.
Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7 SCC 323]. Against the
reality that number of such cases of rash or negligent
acts causing mayhem like death or grievous hurt (or
permanent disability) have only been escalating over
the years, allowing a lid to be put on the criminal
prosecution on account of "settlement" into which the
victim is persuaded to enter, in his or her anxiety, to
receive some recompense, would erode the policy of
the court to maintain the "deterrent element", such
latitude being a result of "misplaced sympathy",
having the potency to convey the undesirable
impression that driving can be permitted to be a matter
of frivolous "frolic".
22. A case of such nature cannot be treated as
merely a private dispute between two individuals - not
the least for this court to exercise its inherent power to
inhibit further judicial process. The jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.PC, though couched in terms of
"power" is actually a responsibility which has to be
discharged carefully bearing in mind the guiding
principles and to "secure the ends of justice" in which
exercise societal interest must always be paramount.
The liberal attitude in quashing such cases as of death
or serious hurt due to rash or negligent acts would be,
borrowing the expression from Muralidhar (supra),
"result wise counter productive in the long run and
against societal interest" and be in the teeth of the
guidelines declared in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra).
6. Though the cause leading to the untimely death of
the individual, which is the subject matter of the case at
hand is not a motor vehicular accident but an incident of
fire, the fact remains that the acts of commission or
omission which led to the said incident stemmed prima
facie, from culpable rashness or negligence. Thus, the
above principles would squarely apply to the case of this
nature as well inasmuch as it is the society at large which
is impacted."
8. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioners in the
present matter do not pertain to acts of gross criminal negligence only
against one private individual whose death was consequently caused.
Such negligence could have led to other workers in the vicinity of the
machinery in question being exposed to undue risk to their life or limb
and, therefore, concerns the interests of the society at large. From this
perspective, the dispute cannot be treated merely as "private" dispute
between the two individuals. In the facts and circumstances of the
case and the gravity of the offence involved, the criminal process
ought not be drawn to a close on mutual agreement. This court,
therefore, declines to exercise the inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the criminal case.
9. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 25, 2018/vk
