Delhi High Court
Jatan Singh & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 22 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4086/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 22nd December, 2011
JATAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Narveer
Dabas, Mr. Siddharth Khanata and Mr.
Chetan Chawla, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Rajipa Behura, APP for State.
Mr. Parvesh Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide FIR no. 148 dated 25.04.2011, case under Section
406/420/467/468/471/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered
against the petitioners at PS-Jyoti Nagar on the complaint of
respondent no. 2
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and respondent no. 2 jointly
submitted that the matter has been settled in Mediation Centre at
Karkardooma Court, New Delhi on 26.08.2011, keeping the settlement
deed dated 21.08.2011.
3. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 is no more interested
to pursue the case further as he has settled all the issues qua the
aforesaid FIR and both have jointly prayed that instant FIR may be
quashed.
4. Ld. APP for State submits that the offence under Section 467
and 471 is non compoundable in nature. Therefore keeping the recent
judgment of the Double Bench of 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, 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.
5. 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).
6. She has also referred recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
delivered in case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr.
reported as MANU/SC/1341/2011, wherein it is observed that the
offences of non-compoundable nature can be quashed if the Court
thinks fit.
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. I found force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the State. At
this Stage, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has come forward on
instructions and submits that the petitioner no. 1 & 2 wish to donate an
amount of Rs.1 Lac for the welfare purposes. I appreciate this gesture.
9. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner no. 1 and 2 to deposit total
amount of Rs.2 Lacs in Prime Minister Relief Fund within two weeks
from today. The proof of the same shall be placed on record.
10. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the petitioners
and respondent no. 2 and the statement of respondent no. 2, I quash
FIR no. 148/2011 registered at PS-Jyoti Nagar with emanating
proceedings thereto.
11. Crl. M.C. 4086/2011 is allowed on the above terms.
12. Dasti
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
jg
