Gian Chand v. The State NCT Of Delhi & ORS

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3116/2017 GIAN CHAND .... Petitioner Through Mr. J.P. Singh, Adv.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP with ASI Jeet Singh, P.S. Ashok Vihar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 20.09.2017 Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.155/2017 under Sections 287/304A IPC registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar on the information of ASI Jeet Singh.

Deceased was working as a technician in the small scale unit run by the petitioner, in the name and style M/s. Sachit Steels. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ruby and Ms. Pooja are impleaded as respondents no.3 and 4, through their mother, that is, respondent no.2.

The deceased was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre by his colleague, namely, Chander Bhan.

Statement of Chander Bhan u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he had stated that deceased along with other co-worker

Kamlesh was working on a 'fadai machine'. They were reducing the guaze of a steel plate. Deceased was working on the front side and Kamlesh on the back side of the machine. Suddenly, the plate broke and one piece thereof hit the thigh of deceased.

Deceased was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

Petitioner and respondent no.2 have settled the matter vide Settlement Deed dated 20th April, 2017, in terms whereof petitioner has paid `3 lacs to the respondents.

Out of this amount, `2 lacs have been deposited in the account of respondent no.2 and `40,000/- each in the account of respondent nos.3 and 4.

`20,000/- was paid in cash.

Today petitioner has given a demand draft of `3 lacs in the name of respondent no.2; out of this amount `50,000/- each be deposited by the respondent no.2 in the bank accounts of respondents no.3 and 4.

Respondent no.2 says that she has settled the matter with petitioner of her own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion and has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even otherwise, from the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Chander Bhan, no negligence on the part of petitioner can be attributed who was not even present in the factory.

I need not to go into this question as petitioner and respondent no.2

have settled the matter amicably, inasmuch as, petitioner has suitably compensated the legal heirs of deceased.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case detailed herein-above, the aforesaid FIR No.155/2017 under Sections 287/304A IPC registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar, which is at the investigation stage, is quashed.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 RB