Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016
RADHE SHYAM GOEL Petitioner, Represented by: Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocates with petitioner in person. ' .
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016
RADHE SHYAM GOEL Petitioner, Represented by: Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocates with petitioner in person. ' .
VERSUS
THE STATE ( GOVERNMENT OFNCT OF DELHI) & ORS Represented by:
Respondents Mr. Avi Singh, Additional Standing
Counsel for State, Ms. Pumima Malik, Advocate with SI Bhagat
Singh, PS Ashok Vihar.
Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with respondent No.2 in person.
Respondent No.5 in person.
W,P.(CRL) 3285/2016 RAMKHILAWAN
• . Represented by:
Respondents Mr. Avi Singh, Additional Standing
Counsel for State, Ms. Pumima Malik, Advocate with SI Bhagat
Singh, PS Ashok Vihar.
Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with respondent No.2 in person.
Respondent No.5 in person.
W,P.(CRL) 3285/2016 RAMKHILAWAN
• . Represented by:
VERSUS
Petitioner Mr. RajeevKuniar andMr. Saurabh Kumar,. Advocates with petitioner in person.
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS...... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Nandita Rao, Additional Standing Counsel for Statewith SI
Bhagat Singh, PS Ashdk Vihar.
Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondentNos. 2, 3 and 4 wi+h respondent No.2 in person.
Respondent No.5 in person.
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS...... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Nandita Rao, Additional Standing Counsel for Statewith SI
Bhagat Singh, PS Ashdk Vihar.
Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondentNos. 2, 3 and 4 wi+h respondent No.2 in person.
Respondent No.5 in person.
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016 and 3285/2016 Page 1 of5
2018:DHC:9085 r")
CORAiM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
23.05.2018 Crl.
M.A. No.9961/2018 (impleadment of respondent No.5) in W.P.
No.1383/2018 By this application,' petitioner seeks to implead Ms. Sangeeta, the injured victim as respondent No.5. , Application is disposed of impleading Ms. "Sangeeta as respondent
No.5, Amended memo ofparties is taken on record;
2018:DHC:9085 r")
CORAiM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
23.05.2018 Crl.
M.A. No.9961/2018 (impleadment of respondent No.5) in W.P.
No.1383/2018 By this application,' petitioner seeks to implead Ms. Sangeeta, the injured victim as respondent No.5. , Application is disposed of impleading Ms. "Sangeeta as respondent
No.5, Amended memo ofparties is taken on record;
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016
W.P.(CRU 3285/2016
By these two writ petitions, petitioners seek quashing of FIR'
No.200/2016 under Sections 288/304-A IPC registered at PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that parties have settled the matter. FIR No.200/20i6 was registered,on a PGR call received informing that a rickshaw puller was lying dead after receiving injuries as the pipe fell on him. . ~
Case of the petitioners is that on April, 2016 when the alleged incident took .place an earthquake rocked the capital of the country which is evident from the various .reports published and the accident was not due to the negligence of the petitioners, much less rash and gross negligence of the petitioners. When the incident happened, the construction was going on and iron pipes were lying, the deceased, a rickshaw-puller was pulling the
By these two writ petitions, petitioners seek quashing of FIR'
No.200/2016 under Sections 288/304-A IPC registered at PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that parties have settled the matter. FIR No.200/20i6 was registered,on a PGR call received informing that a rickshaw puller was lying dead after receiving injuries as the pipe fell on him. . ~
Case of the petitioners is that on April, 2016 when the alleged incident took .place an earthquake rocked the capital of the country which is evident from the various .reports published and the accident was not due to the negligence of the petitioners, much less rash and gross negligence of the petitioners. When the incident happened, the construction was going on and iron pipes were lying, the deceased, a rickshaw-puller was pulling the
W.R(CRL) 1383/2016 and3285/2016 rickshaw at that time when the iron pipe fell on him due to earthquake.
The newspaper 'Times of India' for 11^*^ April, 2016 has also been handed over which is taken on record.
Petitioners have also adequately cony^ensated the legal heirs of late
Sanker Sah, who are respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 hereinand respondent No.5 the other injuredvictim whowas passingby on her bike.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the factum that an earthquake took place on the date of the incident is not in dispute'. Learned Additional' Standing Counsel for the State further submits that in the FIR in question two petitioners are, the only accused, Sanker Sah the deceased victim and respondent No.5 Sangeeta, the injured victim. He further states that late Sariker Sah was survived by three legal heirs, that is, his wife, respondent No.2, andtwo minor children who are respondent Nos.
3 and 4. ' - In view of the fact that it was a natural calamity it cannot be held that there was any negligence much less a rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioners which resulted in the death of late Sanker Sah due to falling of the iron pip on him while he was pulling the rickshaw or causing injuries to respondent No.5 Sangeeta who was driving her motor bike.
Respondent No.2 Smt. Sarita Devi who is present in Court and is identified by her counsel andthe Investigating Officer, on her.behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4,. her minor children states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners. Petitioners have compensated the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 by paying a compensation of ^10 lakhs in total out of which ^3.40 lakhs had been received by her earlier and the balance fV.R (CRL) 1383/2016 and 3285/2016 amount has been paid to her today in Court as tliree FDRs of ^2.20 lakhs
.each in the name of respondent Nos. 2,' 3 and 4 respectively, copies of the
•FDRs are taken on record. She states that she does not wish to pursue, the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto and undertakes to abide by terms of settlement.
Respondent No.5 is also present in Court and is identified by the
Investigating-Officer. She states that she does not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto as the injury received by her was when the pipe fell pursuant to the earthquake and she has also been adequately compensated for the medical^expenses as the petitioners haVe paid her ^20,000/-.
The petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statements ofrespondent Nos.2 and 5.
In view ofthe fact that the alleged incident took place due to a natural, calamity and cannot be held to be due to rash and negligent act of the petitioners and that the petitioners have also adequately compensated the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured, this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served in continuance ofthe proceedings. It would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is. no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question., .
Consequently, FIR No.200/2016 under Sections 288/304-A IPC registered at PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016and 3285/2016 Page 4 of5 Petitioners, respondent No.2 and respondent No.5 have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment oftheir statements made before this Court-.
Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 23, 2018 'vn' 2.1 MI ? /^-r-
The newspaper 'Times of India' for 11^*^ April, 2016 has also been handed over which is taken on record.
Petitioners have also adequately cony^ensated the legal heirs of late
Sanker Sah, who are respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 hereinand respondent No.5 the other injuredvictim whowas passingby on her bike.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the factum that an earthquake took place on the date of the incident is not in dispute'. Learned Additional' Standing Counsel for the State further submits that in the FIR in question two petitioners are, the only accused, Sanker Sah the deceased victim and respondent No.5 Sangeeta, the injured victim. He further states that late Sariker Sah was survived by three legal heirs, that is, his wife, respondent No.2, andtwo minor children who are respondent Nos.
3 and 4. ' - In view of the fact that it was a natural calamity it cannot be held that there was any negligence much less a rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioners which resulted in the death of late Sanker Sah due to falling of the iron pip on him while he was pulling the rickshaw or causing injuries to respondent No.5 Sangeeta who was driving her motor bike.
Respondent No.2 Smt. Sarita Devi who is present in Court and is identified by her counsel andthe Investigating Officer, on her.behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4,. her minor children states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners. Petitioners have compensated the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 by paying a compensation of ^10 lakhs in total out of which ^3.40 lakhs had been received by her earlier and the balance fV.R (CRL) 1383/2016 and 3285/2016 amount has been paid to her today in Court as tliree FDRs of ^2.20 lakhs
.each in the name of respondent Nos. 2,' 3 and 4 respectively, copies of the
•FDRs are taken on record. She states that she does not wish to pursue, the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto and undertakes to abide by terms of settlement.
Respondent No.5 is also present in Court and is identified by the
Investigating-Officer. She states that she does not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto as the injury received by her was when the pipe fell pursuant to the earthquake and she has also been adequately compensated for the medical^expenses as the petitioners haVe paid her ^20,000/-.
The petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statements ofrespondent Nos.2 and 5.
In view ofthe fact that the alleged incident took place due to a natural, calamity and cannot be held to be due to rash and negligent act of the petitioners and that the petitioners have also adequately compensated the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured, this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served in continuance ofthe proceedings. It would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is. no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question., .
Consequently, FIR No.200/2016 under Sections 288/304-A IPC registered at PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016and 3285/2016 Page 4 of5 Petitioners, respondent No.2 and respondent No.5 have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment oftheir statements made before this Court-.
Petitions are disposed of Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 23, 2018 'vn' 2.1 MI ? /^-r-
W.P.(CRL) 1383/2016 and 3285/2016 Page 5 of5
N>
N>
JUDGMENT