CRL.M.C./3116/2017 of GIAN CHAND Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.M.C. 3116/2017GIAN CHAND.... Petitioner

.... Petitioner

ThroughMr. J.P. Singh, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... RespondentsThroughMr. M.S. Oberoi, APP with ASI JeetSingh, P.S. Ashok Vihar

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%20.09.2017

Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.155/2017 under Sections

287/304A IPC registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar on the information of ASI JeetSingh.Deceased was working as technician in the small scale unit run bythe petitioner, in the name and style M/s. Sachit Steels.

On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Ruby and Ms. Pooja are impleaded as respondents no.3 and 4, through theirmother, that is, respondent no.2.

The deceased was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre by his colleague,namely, Chander Bhan.Statement of Chander Bhan u/s 161 Cr.P.C. wasrecorded, wherein he had stated that deceased along with other co-worker

Kamlesh was working on ‘fadai machine’. They were reducing the guaze ofa steel plate. Deceased was working on the front side and Kamlesh on theback side of the machine. Suddenly, the plate broke and one piece thereof hitthe thigh of deceased.Deceased was taken to the hospital, where hesuccumbed to his injuries.

Petitioner and respondent no.2 have settled the matter vide SettlementDeed dated 20[th]April, 2017, in terms whereof petitioner has paid `3 lacs tothe respondents.Out of this amount, `2 lacs have been deposited in theaccount of respondent no.2 and `40,000/- each in the account of respondentnos.3 and 4.`20,000/- was paid in cash.Today petitioner has given ademand draft of `3 lacs in the name of respondent no.2; out of this amount`50,000/- each be deposited by the respondent no.2 in the bank accounts ofrespondents no.3 and 4.Respondent no.2 says that she has settled the matterwith petitioner of her own free will and without any undue force, pressure orcoercion and has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even otherwise, fromthe statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Chander Bhan, no negligence onthe part of petitioner can be attributed who was not even present in thefactory.I need not to go into this question as petitioner and respondent no.2

have settled the matter amicably, inasmuch as, petitioner has suitablycompensated the legal heirs of deceased.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the casedetailed herein-above, the aforesaid FIR No.155/2017 under Sections287/304A IPC registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar, which is at the investigationstage, is quashed.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017RB