Delhi High Court
Mr. Deepak Madan vs State & Anr. on 19 July, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: July 19, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1416/2019 & Crl.M.A. 5655/2019
MR. DEEPAK MADAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar &
Ms. Satakshi Verma, Advocates
with petitioner in person.
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with ASI Rohtash
Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 34/2018, under Sections
287/338 of IPC, registered at police station Mayapuri, New Delhi, on the
basis of affidavit of respondent No.2 and trial court's order of 4th
February, 2019 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.2 is the injured who is
employed in the factory owned by petitioner and had sustained injuries
while performing his duties in petitioner's factory.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the accident in question
occurred due to sheer negligence of respondent No.2 and he has been
adequately compensated. Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions
assures that second respondent shall remain employed with petitioner and
would be paid adequate salary from time to time and that an undertaking
in this regard would be placed on record within a week from today.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State submits that respondent No.2 is present in the Court and he
has been identified by ASI Rohtash on the basis of identity proof
furnished by him.
Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submits that the incident in
question was purely accidental and he has been adequately compensated
by petitioner who has also provided artificial limb to him. Respondent
No.2 submits that compensation of ₹1,00,000/- has already been given to
him and today, he has received demand draft bearing No.286604, dated
8th July, 2019, amounting to ₹50,000/- from petitioner. He affirms the
contents of his affidavit of 11th March, 2019 filed in support of this
petition and submits that the proceedings arising out of FIR be brought to
an end subject to petitioner complying with the aforesaid undertaking.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-
"16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice."
In view of the fact that the incident in question was purely
accidental and that respondent No.2 has been adequately compensated, I
find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, subject to petitioner placing on record undertaking by
way of affidavit in aforesaid terms within a week from today, FIR No.
34/2018, under Sections 287/338 of IPC, registered at police station
Mayapuri, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2019
r
