Pramod Kumar Gupta & ANR. v. State & ORS.

44# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

..... Petitioners Represented by:

Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with Inspector Sunil Kumar, SHO and SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Pul Prahlad Pur.

Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 with Respondent Nos. 2 and 6 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 05.10.2016 By the present petition the petitioners, who are the contractor and subcontractor of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. seek quashing of FIR No. 272/2015 under Sections 287/304A IPC registered at PS Pul Prahladpur, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.6 Aziz and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that settlement has been arrived at between the petitioners and the widow of the deceased Smt. Geeta. Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the two petitioners are the only accused, though one Ajay Kumar was mentioned in the FIR being the Operation Head of BSES Rajdhani

Power Ltd., however, during the course of investigation he was dropped and no charge sheet has been filed qua him. He further states that the actual victims are the dependants of the deceased Kailash, that is, his wife respondent No.2 and the three minor children. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of Aziz a coworker with lineman Kailash who fell down from the pole and died, stating that they were working for the petitioners, who were the contractor and subcontractor of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. On 20th June, 2015 at about 8.00 AM Aziz along with lineman Kailash was on duty when at 3.00 PM they were informed of a complaint of GC-39, Pul Prahlad Pur. Though they took with them rope, tool and handle however, rubber hand gloves, leather shoes, helmet, discharge rod and safety belt were not provided despite asking. While working on the complaint they disconnected the light of GC-39 whereafter Kailash went to rectify the fault. When Kailash climbed the pole with the help of the wooden plank, he fell down and was taken to ESI hospital where he was declared dead.

Though the FIR was registered on the complaint of Aziz a co-worker of the deceased Kailash however, the victims in the above noted FIR are the legal heirs of the deceased Kailash, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the present petition.

The Respondent No. 2 Smt. Geeta Devi, widow of deceased Kailash, who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer on her behalf and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, that is, Master Sachin, Master Manjeet and Master Vikash, the three minor children of Kailash states that she has settled the matter with the

petitioners. In terms of the settlement she has received a sum of `7 lakhs and from the amount of `6 lakhs four FDRs of `1.50 lakhs each have been prepared in the name of Geeta Devi, Sachin, Manjeet and Vikas and the balance amount of `1 lakhs has been received by her in cash. She states that since she has been adequately compensated and she is also receiving pension on the death of Kailash under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2. Since the victims in the above noted FIR, that is, the legal heirs of deceased Kailash have settled the matter with the petitioners, 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. 272/2015 under Sections 287/304A IPC registered at PS Pul Prahladpur, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

Both the petitioners, respondent No.2 and respondent No. 6 have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

The petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

OCTOBER 05, 2016/'vn'