In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 289/125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) as well as the proceedings arising from the same, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan allowed the petition while quashing the FIR as well as the proceedings against the petitioner company.
The FIR was lodged at the instance of a lineman of the petitioner company, which is a service provider to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited. On 16-12-2024, the lineman was cutting a tree at a grid electricity office in Najafgarh, New Delhi, when a couple of the tree branches broke, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injuries. On 24-12-2024, the lineman succumbed to his injuries.
The deceased lineman’s family members entered into a settlement with the petitioner company by a settlement agreement dated 01-04-2025, which recorded that the petitioner paid a ‘voluntary compensation amount’ of Rs. 15,00,000/- without admitting the allegations made in the FIR, to secure the interest of the family members of its deceased employee. The family members affirmed that they did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. However, on 07-01-2026, the State sought time to file a status report regarding the allegations in the FIR.
In its status report, the State mentioned that in the deceased lineman’s statement recorded on 22-12-2024, he stated that he was not wearing any safety equipment at the time of the incident, which is why he sustained serious injuries. An affidavit by the deceased’s wife was placed on record, wherein she mentioned that she was present when the deceased’s statement was recorded and that the deceased did not allege the non-provision of safety equipment.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and stated that the High Court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction even in cases involving non-compoundable offences to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement, but such exercise is discretionary. The Court stated that, when considering the quashing of such proceedings, it must be examined whether the allegations constitute gross negligence and the required element of mens rea, so that the probability of conviction is present.
The Court found that the material on record indicated that the incident occurred in the course of the deceased’s employment with the petitioner and stated that there was no material to prima facie indicate negligence of such a degree to satisfy the threshold of gross negligence required to ascribe criminal liability. Hence, the Court stated that the possibility of conviction appeared remote and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice.
It was noted that, in view of safeguarding the interests of the minor child, the petitioner company had agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs 5,00,000/-, and the Court directed that this amount be paid within four weeks, with a compliance affidavit to be filed within two weeks thereafter. Thus, the petition was allowed, and the said FIR, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Harshal Arora
For Respondents – Mr. Hitesh Vali (APP), Mr. Vivek Nagar
