Full Text
Date of Decision: 5th September 2018
MADAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Bachchan Singh, PS Keshav
Puram
ORDER (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is facing criminal prosecution in the case arising out of investigation into first information report (FIR) no.310/2015 under Sections 285 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of police station Keshav Puram. The case involves the death of Nagraj, aged 50 years, who had succumbed to injuries suffered in an incident of fire in house no. 4273, Gali no.4, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi in the evening of 07.05.2015. The case concerns the afore-mentioned offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, he having used the said property as a godown for stocking inflammable material (PVC goods), the fire incident statedly having 2018:DHC:5714 occurred due to neglect by certain acts of commission or omission on his part, the deceased having been housed inside the said property at the relevant point of time and suffering injuries which proved fatal.
2. By the present petition invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr. PC, prayer is made for the criminal case to be quashed on account of settlement with the second to sixth respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased Nagraj.
3. The prayer in the petition is opposed strongly by the State, it referring to the gravity of the offence involved particularly the offence under Section 304A IPC, placing reliance on Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
4. Per contra, the petitioner relies on Mahender Singh Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors., Crl. M.C. 512/2016, decided on 05.02.2016, a decision rendered by a learned single judge of this Court in bringing to a close another prosecution under Section 287 and 304A IPC.
5. In another similar petition concerning a case of death by rash or negligent act (albeit by driving of a motor vehicle on a public road) by an order passed today, while declining to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the criminal process, this Court taking note of the rulings of the Supreme Court, inter alia, in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641; State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar (2009) 4 SCC 463 and certain others, has held thus:-
22. A case of such nature cannot be treated as merely a private dispute between two individuals – not the least for this court to exercise its inherent power to inhibit further judicial process. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, though couched in terms of “power” is actually a responsibility which has to be discharged carefully bearing in mind the guiding principles and to “secure the ends of justice” in which exercise societal interest must always be paramount. The liberal attitude in quashing such cases as of death or serious hurt due to rash or negligent acts would be, borrowing the expression from Muralidhar (supra), “result wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest” and be in the teeth of the guidelines declared in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra).
6. Though the cause leading to the untimely death of the individual, which is the subject matter of the case at hand is not a motor vehicular accident but an incident of fire, the fact remains that the acts of commission or omission which led to the said incident stemmed prima facie, from culpable rashness or negligence. Thus, the above principles would squarely apply to the case of this nature as well inasmuch as it is the society at large which is impacted.
7. The offence committed by the petitioner in the present matter not only pertains to his acts of gross criminal negligence against one private individual whose death was caused in the consequence, but also to the interest of the society at large since he was found to have been using a property as a godown in a residential area for the purposes of storing highly inflammable goods (such as PVC) in substantial quantity that too, prima facie, without any safety measures in place and consequently putting all the neighbouring residents at high risk.
8. The dispute, in view of this court, not being one in the nature of “private” dispute between two individuals, in the foregoing facts and circumstances and having regard to the gravity of the offences involved cannot be closed on mutual agreement. This court declines to bring an end to the criminal process.
9. The petition is dismissed. R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 05, 2018 Yg/nk