CRL.M.C./3450/2024 of RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 3450/2024, CRL.M.A. 13271/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13272/2024 CRL.M.A. 13272/2024

RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain & Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Advocates alongwith Petitioner No.1 & 2-in-Person. Through: Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain & Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Advocates alongwith Petitioner No.1 & 2-in-Person.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with Ms. Astha Dhingra, Advocate & SI Bharat Singh (P.S. Uttam Nagar). Mr. Vivek Nagar, for the State with Ms. Astha Dhingra, Advocate & SI Bharat Singh (P.S. Uttam Nagar). Mr. Vivek Nagar,

Advocate for R-3 & 4. Respondent No.2 & 3 (Present-in-Person). R-4 Respondent No.2 & 3 (Present-in-Person). R-4

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R R% 02.05.2024

1.The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of FIR No. 270/2010 dated 15.08.2010 filed under Sections 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), at Police Station West Delhi. The FIR was registered on complaint filed by Respondent No. 4.

2.The charge sheet has already been filed in the present case.

3.It is averred that on 15.08.2020, the deceased was

electrocuted while passing from RMU Box installed in front of Tandan Property at RAMA Park Road. It is alleged that the deceased somehow came in contact with the wires of RMU box and was electrocuted. Thereafter the deceased was taken to DDU hospital where he was declared brought dead.

4.The present petitioners were the employees of BSES– Petitioner No.1 was working as Senior Shift Officer with BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd and Petitioner No.2 was working as Junior Engineer with BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. at the relevant time and were chargesheeted in the present FIR.

5.The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties that is, the petitioners and the family of the deceased, by way of Compromise Deed dated 12.04.2024, of their own free will, without any fraud, coercion, fear, threat or misrepresentation.

6.In terms of the settlement dated 12.04.2024, total settlement amount of ₹5,00,000/- has been handed over to Respondent No. 2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased, in the following manner:

a. ₹2,50,000/- by way of Cheque No. 967738 dated 26.03.2024 drawn on Punjab National Bank, in the name of Respondent No. 2. 26.03.2024 drawn on Punjab National Bank, in the name of Respondent No. 2.

b. ₹2,50,000/- by way of Cheque No. 967739 dated 26.03.2024 drawn on Punjab National Bank, in the name of Respondent No. 3. 26.03.2024 drawn on Punjab National Bank, in the name of Respondent No. 3.

7.Both the petitioners as well as Respondent No. 2 and 3 are present in person in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

8.Offence under Section 304A of the IPC is non-compoundable in nature.

9.It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had observed as under :-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash first information report or criminal proceeding on the ground that settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the

overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of civil dispute. They stand on 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 case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.The present case relates to an offence under Section 304A of IPC where person has died due to alleged negligence of the accused persons. Thus, while deciding whether proceedings relating to such an offence can be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the accused and family of the victim, it is necessary to consider whether it is probable that the presented facts would constitute gross negligence and an element of mens

rea, which is required for the purpose of conviction.

12.The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, while interpreting as to what constitutes negligent act to constitute an offence under Section 304A of IPC held that gross negligence and an element of mensrea must be shown to exist. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“48. We sum up our conclusions as under: …(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of higher degree may provide ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution.

The word “gross” has not been used in Section 304A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such high degree as to be “gross”. The expression “rash or negligent act” as occurring in Section 304A of the IPC has to be read as qualified by the word “grossly”...”

13.From the perusal of FIR and the documents annexed with the present petition, it appears to be case of accident. It is not alleged that the petitioners had allegedly taken out the wires out of the box and had left it in open. Given the fact that the family members of the deceased have already settled with the petitioners, it would be improbable to secure conviction in the facts of the present case. The Court, thus, is of the view that the payment of compensation would serve the ends of justice.

14.Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and it is fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC can be

exercised and the proceedings are quashed.

15.However, keeping in mind the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed and FIR was lodged back in the year 2010, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

16.In view of the above, FIR No. 270/2010 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, qua the petitioners, subject to payment of total cost of ₹30,000/- by the petitioners, out of which ₹15,000/- is to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund and ₹15,000/- is to be deposited with Delhi Bar Association (Tis Hazari District Court), within period of eight weeks from date.

17.Let the proof of deposit of cost be deposited with the concerned SHO.

18.The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

MAY 2, 2024 ‘Aman’