LALIT BENIWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No. 275/2006, lodged by respondent No. 3/complainant against the petitioner under Sections 279/337/307/506 IPC registered with PS Saraswati Vihar.

(2.) The subject matter of the FIR is a complaint received from Sh. Suhaib Ahmed/respondent No. 3, employed with FRRO, Delhi Police. The complainant stated that on 13.3.2006, he was accompanied by the respondent No. 2 and Constable Pawan Kumar and after finishing his duties, they got down from the bus at the Deepali Chowk. While crossing the road to access his two wheeler parked at Shakti Vihar Chowki, the petitioner was found to be driving a Santro Car in a rash and negligent manner and while driving down from Peera Garhi Chowk, his vehicle hit the respondent No. 2. When the car of the petitioner stopped at the red light, the complainant and the respondent No. 2 admonished the petitioner, whereupon he misbehaved with them and upon the signal turning green, the petitioner crossed over and turned back on the same road and tried to run down the complainant and the respondent No. 2 who fell down due to the impact of the car. At the same time, the accused drove away the vehicle towards Rani Bagh. As a result of falling on the road, the respondent No. 2 suffered a fracture on his left hand. Upon receiving the complaint, the police authorities carried out necessary investigations and now the case is stated to be at the stage of recording of evidence of the prosecution.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was very young and only 19 years of age and is remorseful for his conduct and the high handed manner in which he treated the respondent No. 2 and the complainant/respondent No. 3. He further states that originally, the FIR was lodged under Sections 279 & 337 IPC. However, later on, the provisions of Sections 307 & 506 IPC were added and that in fact, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit any culpable homicide and that no injury was actually caused on any vital part of the respondents and as such, no offence is made out under Section 307 IPC. He further states that after the aforesaid incident, the petitioner has not been involved in any other incident of road rage and nor has he committed any other offence and now the petitioner is in the third year of graduation. He further states that the petitioner has undergone judicial custody for a period of 20 days and is repentant for his conduct. The petitioner, who is present in Court, volunteers to compensate the respondents No. 2 & 3 by paying them a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, and further, agrees to abide by any other term that may be imposed on him.