Mathieu Jove Villard v. State

1. This is a petition for quashing of FIR no.285/2010, under Sect:o~ 279 read with section 304A of IPC registered with P.S. VaSC[3].T~ Vihar.

2. The charge sheet in respect of the aforesaid offence is stated tc have been filed and is presently pending in the Court of Ms.Chetn& Singh, MM, Saket Courts. The ground for quashing of t2___c aforesaid FIR is that the petitioner no. 1 is a French Natio:-.al working in India for the last 14 years and he was charged hr having caused the death of one Mr.Toney Mashi while driving a vehicle Skoda Car no.D L 3CAJ 8534 on 10.10.2010 at about 4.!JC p.m. when the deceased was crossing the road on Olf Palme Marg, near lIT. It is stated since the deceased was crossing the saic road at the foot of the Munirka Flyover from the side of lIT, he v'c::.s hit by a car being allegedly driven rashly and negligently by.~}-,t: 2011:DHC:11276 present petitioner because of which he died. As against this, Mr.Sethi, learned senior counsel has stated that the accident ",:as caused because of the negligence of the deceased in crossing the road at a wrong place and that after jumping the parapet of the bridge.

3. Without gOlng into the merits of the case, it has now beell contended that the matter has been settled before the Motcn Accident Claims Tribunal and the Insurance Company has paid c~ amount of ~4,60,000 j - to the family of the deceased.

4. The order of MACT is attached at page no.31 of the paper book. It has been stated that a settlement has now been arrived at wi~J:, Ms.Arti Mashy, Widow of the deceased Rj o62A, 4th Floc:: Humainyupur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-29 to get the F: R quashed as the present petitioner has further agreed to pay a su!r of ~5 lacs to the petitioner no.2 towards the settlement of the F: R no.285j 10 which was registered on account of the death of 1..h:::: deceased.

5. This Memorandum of Settlement is signed by both the petitioners, apart from the remaining legal heirs of the deceased Toney MaS~'l~ who are indicated at serial no. 1 to 5 of the witnesses apart fro':L one Mr.A.P.Singh. It is stated by the learned senior counsel that since the matter is being settled and an amount of ~5 lacs h'=is been offered to the petitioner no.2, no useful purpose will be sern.;c~ by keeping the FIR and the consequent proceeding pending against the petitioner who happens to be a Foreign National.

6. During the course of submissions, it has transpired that tb:: petitioner no.2 apart from having three sons has two unmarr~c[6] daughters and therefore, it was suggested to the learned senior counsel to enhance the amount to be paid to the petitioner no.2 sc as to provide financial assistance to the family of the victim.

7. After taking instructions from his client, the learned senior counsl::~ has very fairly stated that an amount of ~7,50,000j- will be paic' towards full and final settlement of the entire claim of tl:: petitioner no.2 on account of the death of her husband in accident.

8. The learned APP does not have any objection in case the aforesaid FIR and the consequent charge sheet are quashed provided aforesaid amount of ~7,50,000 j - to be paid to the petitioner no. 2

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned seni'Jr counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP and have alsc heard the petitioner no.2 in person who is present in Court alcr:g with her son.

10. No doubt, offence under Section 279j304A IPC IS ncElcompoundable and the loss of life can never be measured in ter:::r:s of money but nevertheless the fact remains that ultimately even iithe entire trial is gone through, it will at best only result ire conviction of the petitioner without rendering any succor to the petitioner no.2 who admittedly has two unmarried daughters aLd thus has onerous social responsibility to discharge. Tb:: conviction of the offender for the offence of Section 304A wou~c entail imprisonment and payment of fine which also may not tc anywhere near the amount being offered apart from it will be or:~ly after prolonged trial which invariably in the such cases follows. 1l. I therefore, feel that despite the fact that the offence uj S 304A IF:::: is non-compoundable, interest of justice would be subserved -:y granting permission to the petitioner no.1 being the driver anc petitioner no.2 being the widow of the deceased who died in t::,e accident to compound the offence under Section 304A subject:c the petitioner paying an amount of ~7,50,OOOj- to the petition:~r no.2. It must be borne in mind that the petitioner no.2 is almost getting the doubt the amount which she has got from MAC-=-. Accordingly, a cheque for a sum of ~7,50,OOOj- is paid to t:~c petitioner no.2 in Court and the learned senior counsel h[2].s assured the Court that the same would be encashed or: presentation.

12. So far as the offence ujS 279 is concerned, though that is also nor:. compoundable but in the light of the fact that the parties ale permitted to compound the offence ujS 304A IPC, on account Df the aforesaid reasons, no useful purpose would be served l....)

13. Needless to say that in case the cheque is dishonoured, the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to file appropriate applicatioc for such orders as may be deemed necessary to be passed in f:-c;s Court.

14. Another reason which has prompted this Court to show that f'lis indulgence of quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that at least 1..h::: petitioner has shown a very civilized behaviour which is very rarely to be seen on Delhi roads. It was the petitioner who took the injured to the hospital and informed the PCR. unfortunately, he could not survive.

15. Parties to bear their own cost.