Delhi High Court
Jaspal And Others vs State Nct Of Delhi on 24 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3893/2011
% Judgment delivered on:24th November, 2011
JASPAL & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State.
With ASI Madan Lal, PS-Mukherjee Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No.
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No.
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 18355/2011
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL. M.C. 3893/2011
1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no.149 dated
16.05.2009, case under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
registered against the petitioners qua the complainant / petitioner no. 3 at
PS-Mukherjee Nagar.
2. He further submits that compromise took place on 21.11.2011
between the petitioners and petitioner no.3 has amicably settled all the issues
against petitioner no. 1 & 2.
3. Ld. Counsel further prayed that in these circumstances, FIR may be
quashed.
4. Petitioner no.3 / complainant is personally present in the Court and IO
/ ASI Madan Lal of PS-Mukherjee Nagar has identified him. He submits that
he has settled all the issue qua the aforesaid FIR and does not pursue the
case further and if the present FIR is quashed, he has no objection.
5. On the other hand, ld.APP for the state submits that the offence is
under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it cannot be compounded
and relied upon 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. 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.
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
Gian Singh (supra).
7. Therefore, I also 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. Keeping the settlement into view and the fact that petitioner No.3 does
not wish to pursue his case against the petitioner no. 1 & 2, in the interest of
justice, FIR No.149/2009 under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered against the petitioner no. 1 & 2 at police station Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi and the emanating proceedings therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9. I find force in the submission of learned APP for State regarding
costs. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners on instruction from them submits that
they want to donate some amount for the welfare purpose. I appreciate the
gesture.
10. Keeping in view the financial condition of the petitioner no.1 & 2,
they are directed to deposit cost of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively
in favour of Delhi Police Welfare Fund within 2 weeks from today. Proof of
the same shall be placed on record.
11. Crl.M.C. 3893/2011 is accordingly allowed on the above terms.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2011
jg
