$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2^ + CRL.M.C. 4177/2011 ROOP LAL SALGOTRA Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with r^r. Rajiv Garg, Adv. versus STATE & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER o/o 16.12.2011 1. This is a petition filed by the petitionerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 190/2011,under Section 287/304 IRC registered by P.S. iviahendraPark, Delhi in respectof which the trial is pending in the competent Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Sheshveer Singh/deceased employee had joined in the company in the year 1994 and he was deputed on the job oftwisting machine. On 18.08.2011,Sheshveer Singh/deceasedfell down on a machine and sustainedinjuries. The deceased was taken to the ESI Hospital, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi where he was declared dead. As a consequence of this, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners, however, in the FIR no specific allegations were attributed against the petitioners. 3. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the FIR may be quashed on the ground that the petitioners have arrived at a Signing Date:21.08.2024 17:08:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 3 settlement with the mother Smt. Mithlesh and other legal heirs of the deceased boy. In terms of the said settlement the following benefits were conferred on behalf of the M/s Gupta Electric & Machinery Store carrying on business of manufacturing cables at 40, Rajasthani Udyog Nagar, G.T. Karnal Raod, Delhi to the victim: "1. I undertake to this Hon'ble Court that I shall on behalf of the firm shall pay within a week from today a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the heirs of the deceased Shri Sheshbir, s/o Sh. Saran Singh, r/o Kh. No. 779, Prasad Colony, Burari, Gall No. 7, Delhi who has been working in the aforesaid firm and has died on 18.08.2011. 2. I further undertake to employee his elder son Chander Bhan in our Unit upon his attaining the age of 18 years." 5. A question had arisen as to whether the petitioners apart from the other benefits which are accruing to the respondent under the statutory provision would also be entitled to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In this regard, Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned Advocate was appointed as an amicus curiae by this Court and he was kind enough to assist this Court. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, amicus curiae has submitted his report in brief. He has stated that the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act are not applicable in this case because of Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed in the Supreme Court judgment in case titled A. Trehan Vs. M/s Associated Electronical Agencies & Anr. (1996) 4 see 255 wherein it has been held that an ESI covered employee cannot claim compensation under the Employees' y CompensationAct. Thus, in terms of the said settlement, the mother of the victim would be receiving following benefits: 1 Provident Fund Amount EPF 1,75,000/- Pension 2,400/- 2 E.S.I. ESI already paid 10,000/- Pension to all family members 70% of last drawn salary 3 Lie Group Gratuity Scheme 1,10,000/- Employees Group Insurance Scheme 10,000/- Employees Deposit Link Insurance Scheme Calculated by LIC 6. In addition to this, the petitioners have assured that one of the sons who is presentlyaged around 17 years would be providedemployment by the petitioners. Normally this kind of settlement cannot be enforced and people have tendencyto retract. But this Court in the instant case, has persuaded |V|r. Rakesh Khanna, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners to file an undertaking on behalf of !V|/s Gupta Electric & iviachinery through its partners Sh. Shashi Kant Gupta who is aged around 63 years, r/o C-18, Panchsheel Encalve, New Delhi that he shall pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on behalf of the firm, within a week, to the legal heirs of the deceased and to undertake to provide employmentto Mr. Chander Bhan son of the deceased, after completion of 18 years of age. For this purpose. • I r" Chander Bhan would be writing a letter on attaining the age of 18 years which shall be considered in terms of the undertaking furnished by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the said undertaking. So far as the sum of ?8,00,000/- is concerned, it has actually been paid by the petitioners in order to meet the matrimonial expenses of the two daughters of the mother of the deceased. It has been agreed by the respondent no.2 that the aforesaid amount of ^=8,00,000/- shall be given by way of two separate drafts in her name for a period of two or three years so as to enable her to utilize the aforesaid amount in the marriage of her two daughters. 7. In the light of the aforesaidsettlement, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding ahead with the trial of the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings. Accordingly, the FIR No. 190/2011, under Section 287/304 IPG registered by P.S. Mahendra Park, Delhi and ^the consequent proceedingsfiled in the competentCourt are quashed. This order will not be treated as a precedent as it is passed in the peculiarfacts of V.K. SHALI^J DECEMBER 16, 2011 / 5 * + 1. 3. 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. M. A. No. 752/2012in Cri. M. C. No. 4177/2011 ROOP LAL SALGOTRA .... petitioner Through: Counselfor the petitioner (appearance not given) versus STATE &ORS. , Respondents Through: Counsel for the respondents (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER % 27.01.2012 I This is ^applicationfiled by the petitionerseeking modification In paragraph6 of the orderdated 16.12.2011. 2. Issue notice. The learnedcounsel for the respondents(appearancenot given) accepts notice. The learnedcounselfor the respondentsdo not intendto file any reply to the application. I have heard the learnedcounselfor the partiesand perusedthe record. The contentionof the learnedcounselfor the petitioneris that in paragraph 6 of the order dated 16.12.2011,the petitionerwas required to submit two FDRs for a sum of ^4,00,000/- each with the respondents/complainants towards the settlement arrived at between the parties. However, it is stated that on account of an inadvertent mistake the word ^draft' has got recorded, and therefore, necessary correction in this regard is sought in the order dated 16.12.2011. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant does not have any objection to the correction. 7. Having regard to the submissions made before this Court the word 'draft' as stated in the paragraph 6 of the order dated 16.12.2011 shall be read as TDR'. Accordingly,the application stands disposed of. V.K. SHALI, J JANUARY 27, 2012 KP