Allowed

Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2025W.P.(CRL)/2886/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR for offences under Sections 288/304A IPC registered following the death of a labourer. The petition was allowed based on an amicable settlement where compensation was paid and deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipts for the victim's survivors, preventing abuse of judicial process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 310/2023 dated 13th August, 2023 under Sections 288/304A IPC registered at P.S. Badarpur and consequential proceedings quashed.

Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs State & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 2886/2023, CRL.M.A. 7120/2024

¶4

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Tanu Singhal, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Jyotsna Pandit and Mr. Mohit Raj Nagar, Advocates for State Mr. Mahesh Chand, SI, PSBadarpur.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 12.03.2025

¶12

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 310/2023 dated 13^th August, 2023, registered at Police Station Badarpur for the offences under Sections 288/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,¹ as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The instant FIR was registered pursuant to the demise of Late Sh. Pappu Lal Kashyap, who had been employed by the Petitioners as a daily wage labourer for certain construction work. Allegedly, on account of the Petitioners’ failure to provide the requisite safety equipment, the deceased fell from the fifth floor of the construction building, ultimately resulting in his death on 13^th August, 2023. This incident led to the registration of the impugned FIR against the Petitioners. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of the deceased, while Respondent

¶13

1 “IPC”

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:23:34

¶16

Nos. 3-8 are his daughters.

¶17

The request for quashing of the FIR is made in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties, as evidenced by Deed of Compromise/ Settlement executed on 23^rd September, 2023, between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. A copy of the aforementioned Settlement Agreement has been duly placed on record.

¶18

On 29^th July, 2024, this Court had passed the following order:

¶19

“1. Petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 0310/2023 dated 13.08.2023 at PS. Badarpur under Sections 288/304A IPC.

¶20

2. The petitioners as well as Respondent No. 2 and 6 are present in person. However, the respondent Nos.3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 have joined through VC, who all have no objection to the Settlement arrived at between the parties vide Settlement Deed dated 23.09.2023 whereby the parties had agreed for accepting the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the demise of Sh. Pappu Kashyap, husband of respondent No. 2 and father of the remaining respondents. However, they have subsequently agreed and an Affidavit has been filed to state that the additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- have been given to the respondent in settlement thereof.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the parties present endorses the Settlement and agree that the Settlement has been made voluntarily and without any coercion. It is further submitted that the Settlement inter se the parties is hereby accepted and the respondents endorse that Respondent No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- which she has deposited in the FDR in her name for one year. She further submits that she would require the money in the upcoming months for the marriage of the daughters.

¶22

4. Considering that the compensation was paid not only for the wife but also for the six girls, out of whom one is already married, it is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 shall get the accounts of the girls opened in their names and the compensation amount shall be deposited in their account in the following manner:

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:23:34

¶24

¶25

5. The mother Smt. Kamlesh shall deposit the amount of Rs.2,75,000/in three FDRs of Rs. 75,000, Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 1,25,000/- for a period of two years, three years and five years respectively. The FDRs of the children shall be under the guardianship of mother Smt. Kamlesh and the interest be withdrawn by her quarterly to meet the day to day requirements. 6. The FDRs in the aforesaid manner be produced for consideration on 11.09.2024.”

¶26

In compliance of the said directions, Respondent No. 2 has placed on record an affidavit, stating that the amount has been deposited in the FDRs to the following effect:

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:23:34

¶29

Respondent No. 2 is present in person, and has been duly identified by the by the IO as well as the counsel. She states that the entire amount of INR 7,00,000/- has been received by her, and has been deposited in the FDRs of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8. She states that she has no objections to the quashing of the FIR.

¶30

At this juncture, it is imperative to emphasise the Court’s power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings pursuant to a settlement between the parties. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,² has laid down certain guidelines and parameters for the High Courts while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings:

¶31

“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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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:

¶34

(i) ends of justice, or

¶35

(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.

¶36

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which

¶37

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:23:34

¶40

involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a 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.

¶41

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. ”

¶42

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶43

In view of the law discussed above as well as the settlement between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus, as the continuation of the present proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, but rather only amount to an abuse of the judicial process and impose an unwarranted burden on the State Exchequer.

¶44

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 310/2023 dated 13^th August, 2023 under Sections 288/304A IPC registered at P.S. Badarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶45

The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.

¶46

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are disposed of as infructuous.

¶47

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶48

MARCH 12, 2025 nk

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:23:34

Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Kumar @ Mintu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Pradeep Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Karamjit Garg Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Jamahir @ Jawahar Paswan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Choudhary & Anr. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Punit Kumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Ashish Vohra Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Gomti @ Manoj Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Pradeep Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Jha Vs State NCT of Delhi

Vijay Pal Sadh Vs State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ruslan Petrov Metodiev Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Naveen Sharma & Ors. Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.