Delhi High Court
Deepak Pal vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 25 October, 2018
$~25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th October, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 5410/2018 and Crl.M.A.34859/2018
DEEPAK PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Chand Gangania,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with asi Yashpal Singh,
PS Karawal Nagar.
Ms. Pinki Talukdar, Adv. for
R-2.
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 upon conclusion of
investigation into first information report (FIR) No.708/2015 of Police
Station Karawal Nagar, the petitioner herein is facing prosecution for
offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC). The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner in the
said case is that on 10.12.2015 at about 7:30 p.m. he had driven a
motor vehicle described as a car baring registration No.DL-2CAM-
5933 in a rash or negligent manner on a public road, it resultantly
having struck and run over the second respondent, causing grievous
injuries on her lower limbs. He has approached this court invoking
the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek
quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case arising out of the said
final report on the ground the matter has been amicably settled with
the second respondent.
2. The petition is vehemently resisted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State placing reliance on decision of
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC
641; and 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 Mohit Khurana vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.,
Crl.M.C.4327/2018, decided on 24.09.2018.
3. In Shivam Chauhan (supra), also a case of rash driving of a
motor vehicle leading to similar mishap, albeit leading to death of a
human being, this Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings
based on "settlement", observing 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).
4. The above views squarely apply to the case at hand.
5. For above reasons, the petition and the applications filed
therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 25, 2018
vk
