Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1656 (HP)

Prithvi Singh v. Devli Devi

2016-08-10

P.S.RANA

body2016
Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No. 11 dated 01.02.2016 registered under Sections 287, 336 and 304-A IPC in Police Station Theog District Shimla (H.P.). Brief facts of the case: 2. On dated 01.02.2016 at about 11:00 am manager of plant namely Sh. Prithvi Singh s/o Sh. Kapoor Singh r/o Village Bakholi P.O. Dangyar Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmour H.P. started stone crusher for cleaning it and directed labourer Sh Mukesh Kumar to clean the crusher. It is alleged that at about 12:30 noon Sh. Mukesh Kumar came under the range of belt of stone crusher and died at the spot. It is alleged that labourer deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar died due to negligence of plant manager Sh. Prithvi Singh at the spot. It is alleged that accused committed negligent conduct with respect to machinery and caused death by negligence act not amounting to culpable homicide. 3. Per-contra police report filed by Superintendent of Police District Sirmour H.P. There is recital in police report that in investigation it was found that deceased died as a result of accident and no fault or negligence on the part of any person was found and consequently cancellation report in the matter has been prepared. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR No.11 dated 01.02.2016 on the basis of out of Court settlement relating to criminal offence punishable under Sections 287, 336 & 304-A? 2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that accused entered into out of Court settlement dated 03.03.2016 with mother of deceased and paid her a sum of Rs.13.50 lac (Rs Thirteen lac fifty thousand) as compensation on account of death of her son namely Sh. Mukesh Kumar and on this ground FIR be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. It is held that agreement dated 31.03.2016 is issue of facts and not issue of law. Mukesh Kumar and on this ground FIR be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. It is held that agreement dated 31.03.2016 is issue of facts and not issue of law. There is no admission on behalf of Smt. Devli Devi that she has received a sum of Rs.13.50 lac (Rs Thirteen lac fifty thousand) as compensation. Smt. Devli Devi did not file any response in Cr.MMO No.92/2016. Whether Smt. Devli Devi has finally received a sum of Rs.13.50 lac (Rs Thirteen lac fifty thousand) as full and final settlement is a matter of fact which would be decided by learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Offences under Sections 287, 336 & 304 IPC are non-compoundable criminal offences. In view of the fact that offences under Sections 287, 336 & 304 IPC are non-compoundable criminal offences it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR on the basis of out of Court settlement placed on record because out of Court settlement is not per se admissible and same would be proved in accordance with law before learned Trial Court. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR in death case relating to operation of stone crusher used for public work. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that cancellation report already prepared by the State in the present case as per response filed by the State and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. It is held that it is the discretion of the Court to accept cancellation report or not. In the present case learned Trial Court would decide the matter whether to accept cancellation report or not in accordance with law. See 2012(10) SCC 303 title Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and Another. Also see 2015(8) SCC 307 title State of M.P. Vs. Manish & others. In the present case complicated question of fact is involved. Whether death is accidental or by way of negligence is complicated question of fact and same cannot be decided at this stage of case same would be decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Also see 2015(8) SCC 307 title State of M.P. Vs. Manish & others. In the present case complicated question of fact is involved. Whether death is accidental or by way of negligence is complicated question of fact and same cannot be decided at this stage of case same would be decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Present case has social impact of crime in question and present case is not criminal offence between private parties simpliciter because accused has employed many persons in the operation of stone crusher for public work. Complaint in the present case is filed by Sh. Munna Kumar who was stone crusher operator by profession employed by accused at the time of incident of death. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 8. In view of my findings on point No.1 above Cr.MMO No. 92/2016 is dismissed. Observations made herein above will not effect the merits of the case and will be strictly confined for disposal of present Cr.MMO No.92/2016. Cr.MMO No. 92 of 2016 is disposed of.