Bhanwar Singh vs The State And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1573 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                           Date of decision: 28.05.2021
+     CRL.M.C. 1290/2021
      BHANWAR SINGH                                  ...... Petitioner
                  Through:           Mr. Mahender Kumar, Advocate

                         Versus

      THE STATE AND ANOTHER                 ...... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public
                            Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State
                            with SI Gajendra Singh
                            Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate with
                            respondent No.2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         J U D G M E N T (oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 97/2019, under Sections

288/304A IPC, registered at police station Madan Garhi, Delhi on the basis

of Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.04.2021 reached with respondent

No.2, who is the complainant of FIR in question.

2. The FIR in question pertains to an accident which took place on

23.04.2019 at the house of petitioner, where construction work was going on

and husband of respondent No.2 was working as Mason. He accidently fell

down from the third floor of the under-construction house of petitioner and

died on the spot,.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the incident in question

was purely accidental and after registration of FIR at the instance of

respondent No.2, a claim petition was filed by her before Authority Under

Employees Compensation, New Delhi against the petitioner. Thereafter,

Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.04.2021 was reached between

petitioner and respondent No.2, wherein petitioner has agreed to pay a sum

of Rs.8,00,000/- to respondent No.2. Further submitted that the terms of

aforesaid settlement have been fully complied with and in view thereof, the

present petition be allowed.

4. Notice issued.

5. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent No.1/State accepts notice and submits that respondent

No.2/complainant is present through video conferencing and she has been

duly identified by the Investigating Officer of this case, who is also present

through video conferencing.

6. With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken

up for hearing and disposal.

7. Respondent No.2 submits that she understands that the incident in

question was accidental. She affirms the factum of settlement arrived with

petitioner in terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.04.2021 as well

as contents of her affidavit dated 16.04.2021 filed in support of this petition.

She also affirms having already received compensation amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- from petitioner, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to

her before this Court today. She also submits that she has been adequately

compensated and no grievance against petitioner survives and so, the

proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.

8. The Hon'ble 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 proceedings, 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."

9. Keeping in view that the incident in question was purely accidental

and the fact that respondent No.2 has been adequately compensated and also

that the parties have amicably decided to give a quietus to the dispute

between them, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the

proceedings arising out of FIR in question.

10. Consequently, FIR No. 97/2019, under Sections 288/304A IPC,

registered at police station Madan Garhi, Delhi and proceedings emanating

therefrom are hereby quashed.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J MAY 28, 2021 r