AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Shali
This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.335/2011, u/s 304A IPC, registered by PS Safdarjung Enclave, in respect of which trial is pending before the competent Court at Saket.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 with PS Safdarjung Enclave on 26.11.2011 which was marked as DD No. 3A and was assigned to one Trilok Singh for investigation. During investigation it transpired that one Dr. Suhas Godhi (since deceased) aged 41 years resident of Ghaziabad was visiting New Delhi from 24.11.2011 to 27.11.2011 to attend 26th Annual Conference of doctors to be held at India Habitat Centre. He was staying at the hotel Iris Park in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi along with other delegates attending the conference. On the night of the 24.11.2011 the deceased attended the event at Manek-shaw Auditorium and thereafter returned to hotel. Subsequently, at about 6:30 AM on the morning of 25.11.2011 Dr. Anurag Singh, Treasures of the conference received a telephone call from the said hotel informing about that Dr. S.Godhi was unwell. On reaching the spot to his shock and surprise he found deceased Dr.Godhi was lying on the rear side of the hotel near emergency exit. The officers of the police, video photographed the area, took in to possession the CCTV footage of the time of incident, which revealed that Dr.Godhi was staying in room No.401 at 4th floor. There was an emergency exit adjacent to his hotel and the CCTV footage showed that the deceased stepped out of his room at about 1:39 AM and opened the door marked emergency exit, adjacent to his room, which led to his fall on the ground floor and the consequent death. At about 4:30 AM Dr.Anurag Singh had told the Manager that the deceased was lying outside the hotel but despite this Dr.Godhi was not taken to the hospital in time as a consequent of which it resulted in his death because there was a lapse of three hours in taking him to the hospital and during this period no medical aid was provided to him. On the basis of these broad facts a case u/s 304A was registered against the petitioner. The deceased has been survived by respondent No.3 his widow, who happens to be doctor and two minor, daughters respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The complaint was registered at the instance of uncle of the deceased who happens to be the doctor, respondent No.2 in the present case.
In the petition it has been stated that the petitioner has arrived at a settlement with the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as a consequence of which it has been decided by the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 65 lacs to the respondent towards the full and final settlement in order of their entire claim on account of the unfortunate death of the deceased.
As a reciprocity to the settlement the respondent No.2 and the legal heirs of the deceased respondent would withdraw or would help the petitioner in getting the FIR No.335/2011, u/s 304A IPC, registered by PS Safdarjung Enclave and the consequent proceedings against the petitioner and its Director as quashed.
Modalities of payments are given in para 7 of the petition. In pursuance to the aforesaid settlement which is signed by Mr.Tajinder Pal Singh as Authorised Signatory/Director of the petitioner and Dr.Brinda Suhas Godhi, respondent No.3 for her own-self and on behalf of her two minor daughters. It has been agreed that this settlement is acceptable to her. The settlement has also been signed by Dr.Ashok Sangamesh Godhi, uncle of the deceased/respondent no.2, who is the complainant also.
In the light of the aforesaid settlement it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that as the parties have arrived at a settlement, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR alive and prosecuting the petitioner.
The learned APP has appeared in response to the advance copy having been served has stated that the prosecution is yet to send the Viscera report for chemical examination in order to rule out any foul play, therefore he is not opposing the settlement in principle and the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 65 lacs by the legal heirs of the deceased but it would be just and proper in case the Court awaits for the outcome of the chemical analysis of the Viscera report and, therefore, FIR may not be quashed at this stage.
The respondent No.2 as well as the respondent No.3 are present here and duly identified by their counsel. It may be pertinent here to mention that the respondent no.2 of her own-self and two minor daughters have stated that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR as they have received the entire amount of Rs.65 lacs.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record. No doubt, the loss of human life can never be compensated in terms of money. But in the instant case, since the parties have arrived at a settlement, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by going ahead with the trial of the petitioner or any of the Directors. The reasons for holding such a view is that the widow of the deceased/respondent No.3 is having two minor daughters whose care for education and marriage has to be taken by her. Since her husband is no more, therefore, an onerous financial duty has been cast on her. It is perhaps with this idea in view that the respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3 have chosen to enter into a settlement with the petitioner company. The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.65 lacs to the respondent in terms of the settlement as per details mentioned in para 7 of the settlement. During the course of submission, I had suggested to the petitioner to enhance the amount of Rs. 65 lacs of compensation to an amount of Rs. 80 lacs as marriage of two daughters would entail a considerable amount of expenditure ten years down the line, to which learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.Bagai had readily conceded after obtaining instructions. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 65 lacs which has already been paid and the balance amount of Rs. 15 lacs will be paid in three drafts of Rs.5 lacs each within a period of fortnight from today in the name of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, legal heirs of the deceased.
So far as the objection of the learned APP is concerned, that chemical examination of Viscera report be awaited in order to exclude the possibility of any foul play, I feel that the submissions made by the learned APP that respondents may accept the amount and await the decision of the chemical examination is not only unreasonable and unacceptable but also unjustified. It is unreasonable and unjustified on account of the fact that no accused would like to keep the Damocles sword hanging on its head and yet pay hefty amount of Rs. 65 lacs in advance in the hope of settling the case. I feel that such a submission is not tenable and convincing but the learned APP is also has a point that there could be a foul play also in the death of the deceased as he may have been induced to have Alcohol and hence be under its influence. If one sees the postmortem report of the deceased, it clearly indicates that the deceased was not smelling of alcohol. Had the deceased consumed alcohol then certainly this fact would have been reflected in the post mortem report? Therefore, in my view the absence of smell of alcohol in the postmortem in all probabilities confirms the fact that it was mere an accident that the petitioner in his sleep had arisen and perhaps wanted to go to the ground floor and in the process made a mistake had opened the emergency exit and fallen to the ground. Under these circumstances, I feel when the petitioner is also agreed to the proposal of enhancing the compensation to be paid to an amount of Rs. 80 lacs, it will be unfair to defer the quashing of the FIR. There are numerous instances where the Courts in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the charge u/s 304A or other non-compoundable offences and permitted the parties to compound and quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings.
Mohit jain Vs. State, Crl. Rev. P. 233/2011 dated 07.08.2008
Gagan Malik & Anr. Vs. State, Crl. M.C. 1611/2088 dated 05.03.2009
Virender Tiwari Vs. State, Crl.Rev.P. 440/2009 dated 12.08.2009
Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs. State, Crl.M.C. No.2829/2009 dated 21.08.2009
Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka and Another,
Shri Arun Kumar Narda Vs. State & Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 569/2010 dated 19.04.2010
Azeez Vs. State of Kerala, Crl.A. No. 833/2011
Ranbir Singh Vs. State, Crl. M.C. No. 1705/2011 Dated 05.09.2011 [Reported in 2011 (4) JCC 2472].
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I feel that since the parties have arrived at settlement amongst themselves, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the FIR and the consequent proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, subject to the petitioner paying an additional amount of Rs.15 lacs by way of three drafts in the name of three legal heirs i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in equal proportions in addition to the amount already settled in terms of settlement deed dated 13.12.2011 which is stated to have been paid, I quash the FIR No.335/2011, u/s 304A IPC, registered by PS Safdarjung and consequent proceedings.
No order as to cost.