Vinod Gupta v. The State & Anr

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶1The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.159/2018, under Sections 287/337of IPC, (subsequently section 338 was added) registered at Police Station: Keshav Puram and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶2Briefly stating, the respondent no 2 was working as laborer in the factory of the Petitioner i.e. M/s Shivam Plastic Factory. On

24.04.2018, respondent no. 2 sustained Law rated wound on his hand

from a machine in the factory of petitioner. Thereafter, FIR no 159/2018 was registered by SI Virender.

¶3Respondent No.2/ complainant lodged acomplaint with the Commissioner Employee's Compensation under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. During the pendency of the said complaint, the respondent No.2/ complaint and the petitioner entered into a settlement/ compromise dated 04.09.2019. The petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand) tothe respondent No.2/ complainant towards all the claims of Respondent no. 2.on the following terms and conditions:

¶1That the complainant has filed an application for compensation before the Hon'ble Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act at Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi.

¶2That the second party has offered t 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Thousand Only) as full and final settlement to the complainant on the condition that the complainant would withdraw all the matters arising out of the said FIR No. 159 of 2018 at Police Station Keshav puram under section 287 and337.

¶3That the second party would pay t 1,10,000/- (Rupees one Lac Ten Thousand only) tomorrow on dated 04.09.2019 before the Hon'ble commissioner, Nimri colony, New Delhi vide D.D. No.907858 as party payment.

¶4That the second party would pay the remaining Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) at Rohini Court when the charge sheet of said FIR No.159 of 2018 would be filed by the investigating officer.

¶5That the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions imposed by the second party.

¶6That the complainant/ first party would not file any further case regarding the said FIR No. 159 of 2018 in future too and co-operate in compounding of FIR before the court.

¶7That both the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement deed. The present settlement shall be failed if second party failed to pay the remaining amount of ₹ 50.000- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and the first instalment amount shall be forfeited.

¶4Respondent no. 2 submits that as per the terms and conditions of the settlement deed dated 04.09.2019, the he has already received Rs.1,10,000/- vide demand draft No. 907858 dated 04.09.2019 before the commissioner Employee's compensation. Petitioner submits that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to Respondent no. 2 at the time of filing of chargesheet.

¶5In addition to the settled amount of Rs1,60,000/- the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which was incurred on the treatment of the respondent No.2.

¶6Respondent No.2 states that he has entered into the settlement voluntarily without fear, force and coercion, or undue influence. The petitioner has adequately compensated the respondentNo.2/ complainant. The respondent No.2/ complainant has also given hisno-objection to the quashing of said FlR. In the interest of justice it would be better to put a quietus to the dispute. The chances of conviction would also be bleak and remote, given that the parties do not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the settlement. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement.

¶7Taking into account the totality of facts, circumstances, and

submissions of the respondent No.2 , the case FIR No.159/2018, under Sections 287/337 of IPC, (subsequently section 338 was added) registered at Police Station: Keshav Puram and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶8In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JULY 18, 2023 Pallavi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + VINOD GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Garg, Adv. (VC) versus THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State SI Naveen Kumar, PSKeshav Puram % Date of Decision: 18th July, 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA