AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jaswant Singh, J.—Present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing FIR No. 425 dated 28.8.2007 u/s 304A IPC, PS Sector 17, Chandigarh as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 30.8.2007 (Annexure P2).
The FIR in the instant case was lodged at the instance of one Shamsul son of late Dholu Sheikh, brother of deceased-Mainul Haoque, residents of Village Rampur PO Bhadu, Police Station Ratua, District Malda, West Bengal.
The complainant and his brother were working as labourer with petitionerVed Parkash Mishra, a Building Contractor. On 27.8.2007, i.e. the date of alleged incidence, they both were working at siteJagat Cinema, Sector 17, Chandigarh. At about 9 am Mainual Haoque brother of the complainant during the course of his work fell down from second floor of the basement. He was rushed to a Hospital at Mohali and later got admitted to PGI Chandigarh. Unfortunately, said Mainul Haoque succumbed to his injuries, which led to the registration of the present FIR against the petitioner.
It appears that thereafter on 30.8.2007 the complainant, widow and minor daughter of deceased Mainul Haoque entered into a compromise with the petitioner not to pursue the aforesaid FIR or to file any compensation claim. In return the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as full and final payment to the widow of the deceased and the said amount was also paid to her vide receipt dated nil (P3).
On the basis of said compromise, petitioner approached this Court for quashing the FIR in question. Vide order dated 6.11.2007, notice of motion was issued and further proceedings were stayed.
Thereafter the case was listed on various dates. On 28.2.2008, at the pointing out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the compensation paid to the family of the deceased was not enough, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to have further instructions. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournments on two dates by filing written requests in this regard.
At the time of hearing of this case on 19.1.2009, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that pursuant to the order dated 28.2.2008, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to the complainant vide demand draft and another compromise deed was drawn up. The said compromise deed was produced and taken on record as Mark-A. Keeping in view the fact that complainant was a resident of West Bengal, this Court directed learned Counsel appearing for UT Chandigarh to verify regarding the genuineness of the compromise and the matter was listed for 24.2.2009. Thereafter despite 9 opportunities/adjournments granted on 24.2.2009, 31.3.2009, 18.5.2009, 27.5.2009, 27.7.2009, 21.10,2009, 22.12.2009, 29.3.2009 and 3.5.2009, neither the learned Standing Counsel for UT has apprised this Court about the genuineness of the compromise, as directed by this Court vide order dated 28.2.2008, nor the petitioner took any steps to serve complainant-respondent No. 2.
In view of the above, without verifying/ascertaining the genuineness of the compromise deeds alleged to have been executed between the parties, in my opinion, no direction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be issued to quash the FIR in question as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and resultantly, the interim order dated 6.11.2007 staying further proceedings also stands vacated