Delhi High Court
Som Dutt & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 12 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4115/2011
% Judgment delivered on:12th December, 2011
SOM DUTT & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sanjay Goel, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, the
respondent No. 2 has filed complaint case against the petitioners and
thereafter the same was converted into FIR No. 94 dated 11.03.2009
under Sections 420/467/506/468/471/469/379 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 at P.S. Burari.
2 Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2, due to
the intervention of neighbourers and relatives has amicably settled all
the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue the
case further in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the parties, due
to the intervention of neibourers and relatives.
3 Learned APP for State submits that all the sections in the present
FIR are non-compoundable except Section 420 Indian Penal Code,
1860.
4 Learned APP for State has referred the case 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 and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs,
State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration
whether the abovesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not.
5 Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of the judgment of
the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs.
Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on
03.02.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has
permitted for compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of
Indian Penal Code which were of 'non-compoundable' category as per
Section 320 Cr. P.C. and the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli
Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed.
6. Therefore, I feel that unless and until, the decisions which have
been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the
precedent and have binding effect.
7 Learned APP further submits that alternatively, if the court is
inclined to quash the present FIR, then heavy costs may be imposed
upon the petitioners as in the process, the Government Machinery has
been pressed and the precious time of the court has been consumed.
7 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today . He
has been duly identified by IO of the case, Inspector V.K. Tyagi,
DIG/North District.
8 Respondent No.2 submits that he has amicably settled all the
issues with the petitioners qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want
to pursue the case further. He has no objection if the present FIR is
quashed.
9 Learned counsel for petitioners submits on instructions that
petitioners are interested to donate Rs.20,000/- each towards some
welfare schemes.
10 Accordingly, I direct the petitioners to deposit Rs.20,000/- each
in favour of Delhi Police Welfare fund within 02 weeks from today.
The proof of the same shall be placed on record.
11 In the interest of justice and keeping in view the statement of
respondent No. 2, I quash the FIR No. 94/2009 registered at P.S. Burari
and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
12 Criminal M.C. 4115/2011 is allowed.
13 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT,J
DECEMBER 12, 2011
j
