Delhi High Court
Satbir Singh & Anr. vs Balraj Singh & Anr. on 12 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. 4119/2011
% Judgment delivered on:12th December, 2011
SATBIR SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Adv.
versus
BALRAJ SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 466
dated 22.06.2000, case under Section 380/411/448/34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station - Patel Nagar against the
petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 1.
2. Ld. Counsel further submits that respondent no. 1 has settled all
issued qua the aforesaid FIR and he is no more interested to pursue the
case further and if the present FIR is quashed he has no objection.
3. Respondent no. 1 is personally present in the court and he has
produced the original I-Card issued by Election Commission of India,
photocopy of the same is at Page 38 of the Paper Book. Original seen
and returned to respondent no. 1.
4. Respondent no. 1 submits that he has settled all the issues qua
the aforesaid FIR and no more interested to pursue the case. If the
present FIR is quashed, he has no objection.
5. Ld. APP on the other hand submits the Section 380 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable and has referred the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. 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. Keeping in view the Statement of respondent no. 1 that he is no
more interested to pursue the case, in the interest of justice, I quash
FIR no. 466/2000 of Police Station Patel Nagar and emanating
proceedings thereto against the petitioners.
9. I find force in the submission of ld. APP that the government
machinery has been pressed and precious time of the court has been
consumed.
10. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the petitioner on instruction from
the petitioner submits that petitioners are willing to donate some
amount for welfare purposes.
11. Accordingly, petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.30,000/- in favour of middle school for deaf, Sector 4, Rohini,
Delhi within two weeks from today. The proof of the same shall be
placed on record.
12. The Principal / Head Master of the said school is further directed
to keep this amount in FDR initially for a period of 1 year and get it
renewed periodically and interest accrued thereon shall be utilized for
the well being of needy students.
13. Crl. M.C. 4119/2011 is allowed in view of the above terms.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 12, 2011
jg
