CRL.M.C./3278/2017 of RACHIT SINGHAL & ORS Vs STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3278/2017

RACHIT SINGHAL & ORS...... PetitionersThrough:Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sunil Kumar and Mr. Ankit Dixit,Advs.

versus

STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS..... RespondentsThrough:Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State.Mr. Vipin Singh, Adv. for R-2 to R-5along with R-2 to R-4 in person.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%08.05.2018

It is submitted that petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 5 have settledtheir disputes amicably vide Deed of Compromise dated 13[th]July, 2017,therefore, FIR No.171/2017 under Sections 288/304A IPC registered atpolice station Anand Vihar and the consequent proceedings emanatingtherefrom may be quashed.

Petitioners were running sweet shop. During the renovation of shopLate Sh. Ashok Ram was engaged by the petitioners as labourer.Deceased-Ashok Ram along with three persons, namely, Kallu, Rajkumarand Ram Babu was shifting exhaust machine from ground floor to first floor.

While shifting the machine, they kept the exhaust machine in the staircasefor some time.When they lifted the machine again all of them receivedelectric shock. Unfortunately, Ashok Ram died due to electric shock whileother aforenamed persons dropped the machine on the ground.

Respondent no. 4-Sunita Devi is widow of Late Sh. Ashok Ram;whereas respondent no. 5 is minor daughter and is being represented by hermother, that is, respondent no.4.Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parents ofLate Sh. Ashok Ram. As per the Deed of Compromise, `1 lac is to be keptin FDR in the name of respondent no. 5; whereas `1.25 lac is to be paid torespondent no. 4 and `1,12,500/- each was to be paid to the respondent nos.2 and 3.

Today, petitioners have paid `1.25 lac to respondent no. 4-SunitaDevi and `1,12,500/- each to respondent nos. 2 and 3 vide three separatedemand drafts, photocopies whereof have been placed on record.Anotherdemand draft of `1 lac, in the name of respondent no.5-Asha, has been givento the respondent no.4, which shall be kept by her in the FDR to be drawn inthe name of respondent no.5 till she attains the age of majority. During thecourse of hearing, petitioners have agreed to pay another sum of `3 lacs tothe respondent no.4, over and above the amount mentioned in the

compromise deed. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 has been paid ` 4.25lacs. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 submit that they have no objection in case FIRand the consequent proceedings are quashed.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and thesettlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 5voluntarily, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served inkeeping the criminal proceedings pending. Accordingly, aforesaid FIR and

the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

MAY 08, 2018ga

A.K. PATHAK, J.