OM PRAKASH & ORS. vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.05.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 475/2024
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Krishna Kumar Pandey, Mr.Sudhir Bhagel and Mr. Vivek P. Gupta, Advocates with Petitioners-in-person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Manita, PS: Mangolpuri.
Mr. Shannu Baghel, Advocate for R-2 with respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 867/2016 under Sections 287/337 IPC registered at PS: Mangolpuri and proceedings emanating therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed under Sections 287/338 IPC.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered on complaint of respondent No. 2, who alleged that he was employed in High Tech Radiator, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi run by petitioners, wherein on 01.09.2016, while working on a machine, he suffered injuries on his hand, since the machine was faulty and safety gloves were also not provided to him.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that incident was only due to a sheer accident and proper measures were taken for maintenance of machine. He further submits that matter has been amicably settled with respondent No. 2, whereupon, he has been duly compensated with a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, apart from compensation amount of Rs. 1 lakh which has been awarded by Labour Court and has also got benefits under ESIC Act.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.
6. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from serious offences, minor incidents or offences, which dont affect the society at large or are personal in nature, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and prejudice the accused.
7. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been identified by SI Manita, PS: Mangolpuri. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
8. It needs to be kept in perspective that in criminal cases involving negligence, amount and degree of negligence are the determining factors. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against the injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to the circumstances of the case, accused was under a duty to adopt.
The injuries suffered by respondent No.2 in the present case cannot be ruled out to be accidental. The chances of conviction are bleak in view of settlement between the parties. Since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and respondent No.2 has been duly compensated, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0867/2016 under Sections 287/337/338 IPC registered at PS: Mangolpuri and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioners, each petitioner is directed to plant 10 saplings of trees, which are upto 03 feet in height in the local parks in the area of P.S.: Mangolpuri after getting in touch with the competent authority (i.e. Horticulture Department of MCD / DDA / Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) through IO / SHO, P.S.: Mangolpuri. The photographs of planted saplings alongwith report of IO / SHO concerned shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of the saplings/trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case of non compliance of directions for planting of trees, each petitioner shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 10,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 16, 2024/R
CRL.M.C. 475/2024 Page 4 of 4