Delhi High Court
Hitende Tyagi @ Sintu &Anr vs State & Anr on 18 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3391/2011
% Judgment delivered on:18th November, 2011
HITENDE TYAGI @ SINTU &ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Saurabh Tyagi, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Adv. for R2/R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? NO
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.
578/2003, a case under Sections 365/325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
P.S. Timarpur, Delhi was registered against the petitioners on complaint
of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. It is further submitted that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties vide compromise deed dated 27.06.2011 for a total
sum of Rs.2.75 lacs and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not want to pursue
the case further qua the aforementioned FIR.
3. Respondent Nos 2 and 3 are personally present in the court today.
They are duly identified by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate, who on their
instructions submit that they do not want to pursue the case further and
they have no objection fit the present FIR is quashed.
4. Learned APP strongly opposes the quashing of FIR as the same
pertains to Section 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is non-
compoundable in nature, the FIR should not be quashed.
5. Learned APP referred the case 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.
6. 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 the case of Gian Singh (supra).
7. Therefore, in my opinion 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. Learned APP for State submits that the Government Machinery
has been mis-used and the precious time of the court has been consumed,
heavy costs shall be imposed on the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, on instructions from the
petitioners, come forward to donate an amount of Rs.50,000/- each for
welfare of the needy children.
10. I appreciate this gesture of petitioners.
11. Keeping the Compromise Deed into view and the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, I quash the aforesaid FIR No.
578/2003 under Sections 365/325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered
at P.S. Timarpur, Delhi against the petitioners and all criminal
proceedings emanating therefrom.
12. I further direct, payment of Rs.1 lacs be deposited in favour of
"Nursery Primary School for Mentally Retarded, Mayur Vihar, New
Delhi" within a period of two weeks. The proof of payment be placed on
record.
13. The Principal of the School is directed to keep the amount in FDR
initially for a period of 03 years and interest accrued thereupon shall be
utilized for the wellbeing of the needy children of the School.
14. Criminal M.C. 3391/2011 is allowed and disposed of.
15. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT,J
NOVEMBER 18,2011/j/RS
