Delhi High Court
Varun Kumar & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3965/2011
% Judgment delivered on:1stDecember, 2011
VARUN KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Chander Shekhar S. Tomar,
Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP.
Mr. Ashwini Vij, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 18664/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 3965/2011
1 Vide FIR No. 67/2011, a case under Sections 308/323/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the
2 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that he has
amicably settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not
want to pursue the case further.
3 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. He
has been identified by his counsel, Mr. Aswani Vij, Advocate. On
instructions, he submits that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the
present FIR is quashed.
4 Learned APP for State submits that the case pertains to Section
308 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is non-compoundable.
5 Learned APP refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010
wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred three
earlier decisions viz, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC
675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
(2008) 9 SCC 677 & Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1
to the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the abovesaid three
decisions were decided correctly or not. Therefore, she has prayed that
till the outcome of the larger Bench of the Apex Court, present petition
may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, she prayed that in the event,
the FIR is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the
petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious
time of the Court has been consumed.
6 The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram
Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided
on 03.02.2011 has permitted for compounding of the offences of 'non-
compoundable' category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. even after
discussing Gian Singh (supra).
7 Therefore, I feel that unless and until, the decisions which have
been referred above, are set aside or altered, by the larger Bench of the
Supreme Court, all the above three decision hold the field and are the
binding precedents.
8 Learned APP further submits that since the Government
machinery has been mis-used and the precious time of the court has
been consumed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners
while quashing the FIR.
9 Though, I find force in the submission made by learned APP for
State, but keeping in mind the poor financial condition of petitioners
into view, I refrain imposing costs upon them.
10 I quash FIR No. 67/2011 registered at P.S. Geeta Colony, Delhi
and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
11 Criminal M.C. 3965/2011 stands allowed and disposed of.
12 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT,J
DECEMBER 01, 2011
j
