KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 817/2009 registered at police station Sultanpuri u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code. It has been stated in the petition that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and it has been agreed that the petitioner would pay a sum of rs. 3. 5 lakhs to respondent No. 2 against all her claims. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 2. 5 lakhs has already been paid to respondent no. 2 and the remaining amount is to be paid after quashing of FIR.

(2.) THE FIR in this case was lodged by one Purshotam, alleging therein that deceased Rajnish was working in a factory situated at C-15, sharma Colony, Budh Vihar where clutch-brakes and allied products are manufactured with a machine run on electricity. The machine was not repaired despite several complaints. In the intervening night of 28th / 29th May, 2005, current flow from the machine hurt his brother, deceased Rajnish Pati Ram, who was declared dead, when taken to hospital.

(3.) IN para 3 of the petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, stated as under:-D. It has been further alleged that the husband of the respondent no. 2 deceased rajnish under the instructions of the petitioner was operating and working on his defective and fault "batai KI MACHINE" and the husband of the respondent No. 2 told the petitioner several times to get it repaired, but the petitioner did not care for the repeated requests of the deceased workman Sh. Rajnish. Even the husband of the respondent No. 2 several times told the petitioner that there is a great danger as the high voltage electric current may spread in the machine which may cause the death to the workman Sh. Rajnish, but the petitioner did not care at all the repeated requests of the husband of the respondent No. 2 and on this the petitioner threatened to the husband of the respondent No. 2 that if he will not operate the faulty and defective machine, then his services would be terminated illegally, unlawfully and forcibly. E. It has been further alleged that on unfortunate day on 27. 05. 2005 the petitioner ordered workman Rajnish to operate the defective and faulty Machine and the petitioner forced the husband of the respondent No. 2 to operate the faulty and defective machine and as soon as workman Sh. Rajnish started working and operating the said defective and faulty machine under the threatening order of the petitioner, then immediately high voltage electric current was spread in the said defective and faulty machine and the husband of the respondent No. 2 Rajnish was caught by the high voltage electric current and the husband of the respondent No. 2 sh. Rajnish died on the spot while he was working under the orders, control, supervision and employment of the petitioner the petitioner killed the husband/workman Rajnish of the respondent No. 2.