RAJEEV DHANRAJ Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.265/2003 under Sections 279/304-A IPC registered by PS:Mandir Marg, New Delhi on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent no.2 have arrived at a settlement, in terms of which the petitioner is purported to have paid a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the respondent no.2 towards the full and final settlement of her entire claim, both with regard to MACT claim as well as for compensation for the criminal case.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.8, Rajeev Rana, lodged an FIR No. 265/2003 under Sections 279/304-A IPC at PS:Mandir Marg, New Delhi regarding a road accident at Wellington Crescent near Shehenshah Restaurant, New Delhi in which one Rajender Prasad Sati was injured and he succumbed to injuries later on. The petitioner was a minor and was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no.DL9CA-0798. On account of the aforesaid accident, the respondent no.2, widow of late Rajender Prasad, not only lodged an FIR under Sections 279/304-A IPC, but also filed a case for damages before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Respondent nos.3 to 7 are the other legal heirs of deceased Rajender Prasad. The Motor Accident Claim was settled between the parties, as has been recorded in the order dated 27.11.2008, and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the entire claim of the respondent for motor accident claim as well as for the criminal case. The statements of Rama Devi and that of Rajeev Dhanraj in this regard were also recorded.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the parties have arrived at a compromise and an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been paid to the widow of the deceased for her own benefit and for the benefit of the other legal heirs, therefore, the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings, which are pending in the competent court, may be quashed. It has further been stated by the learned counsel that the delay in filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been occasioned because of the fact that the petitioner was trying to locate the respondent no.2, but despite his sincere efforts, he could not trace her. It was urged since the respondent no.2 has received the entire claim amount, the continuance of these proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and, therefore, the same be quashed.