Delhi High Court
Manish Sahni vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 30 October, 2018
$~16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 30th October, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 5511/2018 & Crl.M.A. 35241/2018
MANISH SAHNI ..... Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with SI Dharamvir Singh,
AIU Cell, New Delhi.
Mr. Amresh Yadav, & Mr.
Shivnath Kumar, Advs. for R-3
to 6 along with R-3 & 4 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing prosecution in the criminal case arising
out of the final report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of
investigation into first information report no. 157/2014 of police
station Parliament Street on the accusations of he having committed
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC), the gravamen whereof is that he had indulged in
rash or negligent driving of motor vehicle on a public road, such act
having resulted in an accident wherein one Sanjay Kumar Vidyarthi
suffered injuries that proved fatal. He has come up with the petition
at hand invoking the inherent powers and jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the proceedings in the said
criminal case to be quashed on the ground that he has settled the
dispute with the third to sixth respondents, they being the legal heirs
of the deceased Sanjay Kumar Vidyarthi.
2. The petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme
Court reported as Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and of a
learned single Judge of this Court in Crl.M.C. 5327/2013 Sh. Nand
Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. decided on 11.02.2016.
3. The respondent/State opposes the prayer in the petition referring
to the ruling of the bench of three hon'ble Judges of the Supreme
Court Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and
decision of this Court reported as Shivam Chauhan & Anr. vs. The
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2018 SCC Online Del 11315
4. In Shivam Chauhan while considering a similar prayer in
another case of fatal accident, taking note, inter alia, of the decisions
in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir
(supra), this court had concluded 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).
23. In above view, the approach in the earlier decisions
of this court, and some other High Courts, cited by the
petitioners does not commend itself to this court.
5. The above principles apply to the present case as well. In this
view, this Court declines to grant relief prayed for.
6. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2018/nk
