CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 11 DEL CK 0051

Naveen Kaushik vs State and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 19 November 2012 · Citation: (2012) 9 AD 529 : (2013) 1 JCC 248 : (2012) 1 JCC 248

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Bhasin, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. 3932 of 2011 and Criminal M.A. 18541 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 383 words

P.K. Bhasin

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused for quashing of the FIR No. 93/2000 under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at Delhi Cantt. Police Station and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom pending in Court also. The accident, which proved to be fatal for the husband of respondent no. 2, which led to registration of the FIR against the petitioner occurred on 4th March, 2000. The FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 who though was not an eye-witness of the accident but was told by the deceased husband after the accident that the accident between his scooter and the motorcycle of the petitioner had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner herein.

2.

In this background the petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and his trial is going on in Court but now the petitioner and the widow and daughter of the deceased have arrived at a settlement and they have been paid Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation.

3.

The respondent no. 2 complainant and respondent no. 3, daughter of the complainant, stated in Court that they have no objection if this petition is allowed on account of the parties reaching an amicable settlement and also agreed to have received a payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the petitioner in terms of the settlement which amount already stands deposited with the trial Court and agreed to be released to the complainant. The criminal case was registered on the complaint of the wife of the deceased that she was told by her deceased husband that the accident was caused by the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle and now that there has been an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased there is no likelihood of conviction of the accused petitioner. So no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the trial of the accused and it would be an abuse of the process of law if the trial of the petitioner is allowed to continue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR No. 93/2000 and the trial of the petitioner in respect of this FIR are quashed.