Delhi High Court
Akhilesh Goenka @ Akhil Lohia vs State & Ors. on 18 December, 2019
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18.12.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 6536/2019
AKHILESH GOENKA @ AKHIL LOHIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rinku Kumar Garg, Adv. with
petitioner in person
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
SI Kuldeep Kumar, PS Vasant Kunj
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. for R-
2to6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL. M.A. 42951/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 6536/2019
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby
quashing FIR No. 726/2017 dated 16.12.2017, registered at Police Station
Vasant Kunj, North and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. Notice issued.
5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and counsel for the
respondent nos.2 to 6.
6. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is
taken up for final disposal.
7. The instant FIR was registered on the statement of H.C. Kishori Lal
[Respondent No.7] whereby he stated that on 15- 16/12/2017 at about 3.15
a.m., while he was posted at Nelson Mandela Marg, the petitioner/accused
while driving his Skoda car, came from Vasant Vihar side in a rash and
negligent manner and he signaled the petitioner to stop the car by showing
light bar. The petitioner instead of stopping his car, turned the same
towards him, but somehow he saved himself, but the petitioner hit three
barricades, which were put on the road, one by one and thereafter, also hit
the armoured Morcha behind the barricades, where Ct. Bhup Singh
(deceased) was standing in his position, due to which above named
constable suffered various injuries on his head, face, chest and legs due to
which his M.P.-5 magazine got broken and the bullets were scattered. It has
been further alleged in the said FIR, that after causing the said accident, the
petitioner tried to flee away from the spot, but after going about 30 meters,
his car was stopped and again he tried to flee away but the nearby passers
caught him. Strong alcohol smell was coming out from his mouth and
thereafter, Ct. Bhoop Singh as well as the petitioner were taken and got
admitted in Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. Thereafter, present FIR was
registered and when the petitioner was discharged from the hospital after
providing him medical aid, he was arrested on 16.12.2017.
8. The present petition has filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing
of FIR qua the petitioner only, whereas the prosecution and respondent no.
2 to 6 are at liberty to proceed against M/S Grand Auto capital, through its
partner Sh. Abhinav Rishi.
9. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner submits that initially the case was registered under section 308
IPC in addition to other penal provisions, but due to the unfortunate death of
Ct. Bhoop Singh, the same was converted in to Section 304 IPC. However,
during investigation, section 304 IPC was converted into 304A IPC.
Accordingly, the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been filed under
Section 304A IPC before the Accident Claims Tribunal.
10. As stated in the present petition, at the time of hearing of Bail
Application before the Learned ASJ, the petitioner, without prejudice to his
rights and that too on humanitarian grounds, offered compensation to the
family members of the deceased Ct. Bhoop Singh and accordingly, the
father and father in law of the deceased Bhoop Singh appeared before the
court of the LD ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and submitted that
they have arrived at a compensation settlement with the petitioner
voluntarily for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakh only] and
pursuant to the said settlement and upon receiving the settlement amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakh] from the petitioner, they do not want to
oppose the bail of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the LD ASJ was pleased to
grant regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.2017.
11. Learned senior counsel submits that initially there were allegations
against the petitioner that he caused the accident while driving the vehicle
under the influence of liquor, however later on as per the FSL report, the
petitioner was not found under influence of liquor /drugs at the time of the
alleged accident. Accordingly, offence of Section 304 IPC was converted in
to Section 304 A IPC, which has been duly mentioned in the Detailed
Accident Report (DAR).
12. Accordingly, Mr. Khanna, submits that section 304A IPC has been
invoked against the petitioner at a subsequent stage and as such there is no
question of committing the offence as punishable under Section 186 IPC.
Thus, the alleged negligent act by the petitioner cannot be termed as
intentional, which is the prime requirement to invoke Section 186 IPC and
similarly, Section 3 PDPP Act also cannot be invoked against the petitioner.
Thus, neither the offence under Section 186 IPC nor section 3 PDPP Act, are
made out at all against the petitioner.
13. As per the said DAR, the petitioner was not even driving the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel further submits that in
addition to the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) already
paid to the family of the deceased Bhoop Singh at the time of seeking the
bail, the Petitioner and the respondent No.2 to 6, also entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.12.2019, whereby the petitioner
agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakh
only] as additional compensation by way of demand drafts in the name of
the respondent no.2 to 6 at the time of quashing in the following manner:
a. Rs. 10, 00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakh only] to Smt. Mamta [widow]
b. Rs. 10, 00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakh only] to Master Gaurav,
respondent no. 3 [Minor son of Sh. Bhoop Singh [Deceased], aged
about 3 years, through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Mamta,
respondent no.2.
c. Rs. 10, 00,000/- [[Rupees Ten Lakh only] to Lavanya, respondent
no.4 [Minor, aged about 1 year], Daughter of Sh. Bhoop Singh
[Deceased]Through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Mamta i.e.
Respondent no.2
d. Rs. 10, 00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakh only) to Smt. Patasi Devi w/o
Sh. Babu Lai [mother of deceased Sh. Bhoop Singh), respondent no. 5
e. Rs. 10, 00,000/- [[Rupees Ten Lakh only) to Sh. Babu Lai s/o Sh.
Suraj Bhan [Father of deceased Sh. Bhoop Singh), respondent no.6
14. Respondent no.1 is State. Respondent nos. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of
deceased Bhoop Singh. Five draft bearing No. 668755, 668758, 668751,
668753, 668756 dated 16.12.2019 each for sum an amount of ₹50 lacs has
been handed over to the respondent no.2 (widow of the deceased) who is
present in Court. Respondent no.7 is a performa respondent being informant
to the FIR and no relief is sought against him.
15. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 are minor children of the deceased and
settlement has been signed on behalf of respondent no.2 who is the mother
and natural guardian.
16. The present petition has been filed on the ground that settlement has
been arrived between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 6 and they do
not wish to pursue the case against the petitioner.
17. Respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6 are personally present in Court, whereas
respondent nos.3 & 4 are minor and are being represented by respondent
no.2, who is mother and natural guardian of the said respondents. The said
respondents have been identified by SI Kuldeep Kumar. They state that the
matter has been settled and they do not want to prosecute the petitioner any
further.
18. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State has opposed the present
petition and submits that in the accident, life of a young constable of Delhi
Police, aged 30 years and having 9 years of service, lost his life and in the
accident, the petitioner damaged public property, therefore, if this Court is
inclined to quash the FIR, heavy cost may be imposed upon the petitioner.
19. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has come
forward and submits that petitioner is ready to an pay an amount of ₹10 lacs
for welfare purposes.
20. Accordingly, keeping in view the compromise arrived between the
petitioner and legal heirs of the deceased without any coercion, I hereby
quash FIR No. 726/2017 dated 16.12.2017, registered at Police Station
Vasant Kunj North and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
21. The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of ₹5 lacs in favour of
Delhi Police Martyrs Fund, ₹2 lacs in favour of Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee and an amount of ₹2 lacs in favour of Nirmal Chhaya,
Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi for welfare of destitute women and
children and ₹1 lac in favour of Blind school, Sewakutir, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi within two weeks.
22. Receipt of the payment shall be furnished to the IO of the case.
23. It is made clear that respondent nos.2to6 are at liberty to initiate the
proceedings, if so advised, against the insurance company and the owner of
the vehicle in question.
24. Needless to state that amount paid by the petitioner in the present
case is only for quashing of the present FIR and all proceedings emanating
therefrom and this amount shall not be taken into consideration at the time
of granting compensation in the MACT claim.
25. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
26. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2019
ms
