Delhi High Court
Bhim Singh & Ors vs State on 23 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4337/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 23rd December, 2011
BHIM SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.K. Sethi, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1 Notice issued.
2 Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State accepts notice on
behalf of state.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant
petition has been filed jointly by accused persons and complainant to
quash the FIR No. 994/2000 dated 31.10.2000 registered at P.S. Dabri
District South West under Sections 147/148/149/452/323/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against petitioners Nos. 1 to 10 on the complaint of
petitioners No.11 and 12.
4 Learned counsels further submit that all the petitioners belong
hail from the same locality and the matter has been compromised
amicably between the parties due to the intervention of family friends
and relatives.
5 All the petitioners are present in person and have been duly
identified by Mr. S.K. Sethi, Advocate. In addition thereto, for the
identification of petitioners Nos.11 and 12 who were also the
complainants, they have placed on record their respective affidavits
and photographs.
6 Learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction of petitioners
No. 11 and 12 submits that they have amicably settled the matter with
petitioners No. 1 to 10 and they are no more interested in pursuing the
case further. They have no objection if the instant FIR is quashed.
7 Learned APP for State submits that except Section 323 Indian
Penal Code, 1860, all the other sections pertaining to the instant matter
are non-compoundable in nature.
8 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.
9 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).
10 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.
11 Further submits that if the court is inclined to quash the FIR,
heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioners for mis-using the
Government Machinery and consuming the precious time of the Court.
12 Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP
for State, but keeping in view the poor financial condition of the
petitioners, I refrain imposing costs upon them.
13 In the interest of justice and in view of the statements made by
petitioners No. 11 and 12, I quash the FIR No. 994/2000, police station
Dabri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
14 Criminal M.C. 4337/2011 is allowed and disposed of.
15 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 23, 2011
j
