Delhi High Court
Praveen Bansal & Anr vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 4 December, 2019
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2805/2019
PRAVEEN BANSAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Shiv Charan Garg
with Mr Imran Khan,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI) & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr Sanjay Lao, ASC with
Mr Karanjeet Singh
Sharma, Advocate for
State.
SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S.
Prasad Nagar.
Mr Sunil Upadhyay,
Advocate for R2 to R8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 04.12.2019
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying
that the FIR No. 60/2012 under Section 323/325/308/304/34 of the IPC,
registered with PS Prasad Nagar and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, be quashed.
2. The said petition is premised on a settlement arrived at between
the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 8.
3. The petitioner was engaged in the construction of a building at
Plot No. E-16/1103, Tank Road, Bapa Nagar. The said building
collapsed in the intervening night of 30.03.2012 and 31.03.2012. In the
said incident, four persons died and three sustained injuries.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner had no permission to construct the
said building and the construction being raised was wholly illegal and
unauthorized. It is also alleged that instead of cement, some other
substance was being used in the construction.
5. This Court is not inclined to examine the allegations in any depth.
However, it does appear that if the allegations as made are correct than
there is good ground to convict the petitioner for an offence punishable
under Section 304-A of the IPC.
6. This Court in Bhajan Lal Sharma & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) & Ors.: W.P.(Crl.) 1280/2016, decided on 01.08.2016 had
observed that offences under Section 304-A of the IPC, which indicate
gross negligence, cannot be quashed. This Court had also observed that
the same would amount to providing a premium on negligence.
7. Although in certain cases where this Court has felt that ends of
justice would be served, FIRs under Section 304-A of the IPC have been
quashed. However, this Court is of the view that the present case is not
one such case. The petitioners are accused of gross negligence. The
petitioner had no permission or authority to raise the construction that
was being raised. It also appears that the construction was raised in a
negligent manner, which resulted in the tragic incident. It cannot be
ignored that four persons have lost their lives and three have been
injured. Such wanton and unauthorised construction, without any regard
as to safety of others, cannot be countenanced.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the
decisions of this Court in Ramanand v. The State & Anr.: (2014) 3
JCC 1923; Ashok Kumar v. State & Anr.: (2014) 210 DLT 30; and
Baldev Raj Kapur v. State : (2009) 1 JCC 665 in support of his
contention that an FIR under Section 304-A of the IPC ought to be
quashed if a settlement is arrived at between the accused and the legal
heirs of the deceased.
9. The said contention is unmerited. In Ramanand (supra) this
Court had noticed the authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.: (2014) 2 JCC 1360. The
Supreme Court had set down the principles, which are to be applied
while considering the question whether an FIR is required to be quashed
pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the concerned parties. The
Supreme Court had explained that serious and heinous offences cannot
be quashed on the basis of a settlement. However, offences which are
in the nature of private disputes can be quashed on a settlement arrived
at between the concerned parties. The Court had further observed that
while exercising inherent powers, it is also to be examined whether
extreme prejudice would be caused to the accused in not quashing the
case.
10. Apart from offences of heinous nature and offences in the nature
of private disputes; there is a third class of cases, where the disputes are
not of a private nature yet in the given facts would not amount to
heinous or serious crimes. In such cases, the court may quash the FIR
if, after examining the facts, it concludes that it would be in the interest
of justice to do so.
11. This Court is of the view that this case does not fall within the
scope of those cases. The decision in the case of Ramanand (supra) is,
thus, of no assistance to the petitioner.
12. Insofar as Ashok Kumar (supra) is concerned, the said case
relates to a death caused by rash and negligent driving. The Court had
examined the facts and circumstances of that case and concluded that in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, continuance of the
proceedings arising out of the FIR therein would be an exercise in
futility. The present case is quite to the contrary. The facts obtaining in
this case indicate that there is a strong probability of the petitioners
being convicted of the alleged offence.
13. In the case of Baldev Raj Kapur (supra), the Court had examined
the facts and came to the conclusion that the accused was not aware that
the construction being raised was likely to cause death of human beings.
No such inference can be drawn in this case. The said decision is also
of little assistance to the petitioners.
14. It is settled law that in cases where the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis a petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed; one of the guiding factors for the court is to
examine if ends of justice would be served by quashing the criminal
proceedings in question (see: Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of
Punjab and Anr.: (2014) 2 JCC 1336).
15. In the present case, this court is unable to accept that ends of
justice would be served by quashing the FIR in question. The present
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
DECEMBER 04, 2019
pkv
