Suresh Rana & Ors vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 6102 Del

$~36
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           CRL.M.C. No. 4147/2011

%           Judgment delivered on:13th December, 2011

SURESH RANA & ORS                                       ..... Petitioners
                             Through : Mr.S.S.Dahiya, Adv

                    versus

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR                     .... Respondent
                   Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State
                   with SI Pawan Kumar, police station Bawana
                   in person.
                   Mr.L. K. Dahiya, Adv for R-2 with
                   respondent in person.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A.No.19230/2011(exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

+    CRL.M.C. No. 4147/2011

1.   Notice issued.

2. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP on behalf of respondent No.1/ State & Mr.L. L. Dahiya, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 accept notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.117/2011 dated 02.04.2011 a case under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Bawana, Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.

4. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has amicably settled the matter with petitioners as all of them are cousin brothers and all of them hails from same village i.e. Mungeshpur, Bawana, Delhi. Pursuant to the settlement, respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing his case against petitioner any more.

5. Respondent No.2 personally present in the Court with his learned counsel Mr.L. K. Dahiya, who duly identifies him as respondent No.2. In addition, SI Pawan Kumar from police station Bawana also identifies respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions submits that he amicably settled all the issues qua present FIR due to intervention of the family members and friends as all are cousin brothers and he is no more interested in pursuing it. Respondent No.2 does have any objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

7. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP, on instructions submits matter is pending for investigation.

8. He further opposes the quashing of the present FIR for the reasons the offence under Section 308 IPC falls under the category of non-compoundable as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and referred 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, he has prayed that till the outcome of the larger Bench of the Apex Court, present petition may be adjourned sine-die.

9. Alternatively, he 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.

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. Moreover, this Court has already quashed cross case FIR bearing No.116/2011 police station Bawana, Delhi registered against the respondent No.2 vide order passed in Criminal M.C.No.3134/2011, though the offences were compoundable therein. All the parties are native of same village and they should be afforded an opportunity to redevelop their brotherhood in a conducive atmosphere.

13. In the interest of justice, in view of settlement between the parties, FIR No.117/2011 registered at police station Bawana, Delhi against the petitioners is quashed.

14. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP, however, keeping the facts into view that petitioners are having vocation of agriculture for livelihood, no costs is being imposed upon them.

15. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.4147/2011 is allowed and stands disposed of.

16. In view of above order, Criminal M.A.No.19231/2011 (stay) does not warrant any further adjudication and stands disposed of.

17. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

DECEMBER 13, 2011 Mk