Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh Alias Bablu & Ors vs State on 15 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4068/2011
% Judgment delivered on:15th December, 2011
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH ALIAS BABLU & ORS
......Petitioner
Through : Mr. Chakravarti, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.
Mr. Lalit Kumar, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.C. 4068/2011
1 Notice issued.
2 Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 925
dated 25.09.2007, a case under Sections 308/323/34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners at P.S. Sangam
Vihar, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Respondent no. 3
sustained injuries during scuffle.
4 Learned counsel further submits that vide settlement deed dated
29.11.2011, all the disputes amongst the parties have been amicably
settled.
5 Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are personally present in the court
today and have been duly identified by their counsel Mr. Lalit Kumar,
Advocate.
6 Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, on instructions
submits that they do not want to pursue the case further in pursuance of
settlement arrived at between the parties. They have no objection if the
FIR is quashed.
7 Learned counsel further submits that though there has been a
cross case against the parties vide FIR No. 924/2007, the same has
already been compounded before learned MM under Sections
323/304/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8 Learned APP for State submits that the instant FIR No.
925/2007 pertains to Section 308 Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is
non-compoundable in nature.
9 Learned APP 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, 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.
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 Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to
quash the FIR, heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioner as in
the process Government Machinery and precious time of the court
have been consumed.
13 Though I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for
State, but keeping in mind poor financial position of petitioners, I
refrain imposing costs upon them.
14 Keeping in view the statements made by respondent Nos. 2 and
3, and settlement arrived at between the parties, I quash the FIR No.
925/2007,registered at P.S. Sangam Vihar, Delhi and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
15 Criminal M.C. 4068/2011 is allowed on the above terms.
16 Dasti.
CRL. M.A. 19028/2011
In view of above, this application is disposed of being
infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 15, 2011
j
