Delhi High Court
Praveen Kishwan & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi &Ors. on 28 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~08
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3727/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 01st December, 2011
BALA GARG & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Asit Tewari , Adv
versus
STATE & ORS . ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State/
Respondent No.1 with Inspector Sanjay
Kumar, PTC Jharoda Kalan and ASI
Surender, police station Rohini in person.
Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Adv for respondent Nos.2
& 3 with both respondents in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR
No.669/2008, dated 07.10.2008 case under Section 420/468/471/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Rohini, Delhi
against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 Sh.Jawahar
Lal Arora. Mr.Sandeep Batra, respondent No.3 is also stated to have
been aggrieved by the acts of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide
MOU dated 17.10.2011, respondent Nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled
all the issues with the petitioners qua the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, they
do not wish to pursue their case any further.
3. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are personally present in the Court with
their counsel Mr.Neeraj Gupta. On instructions, from both
respondents, learned counsel submits that they do not want to pursue
the present case and they have no objection, if the present FIR is
quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the
MOU dated 17.10.2011, petitioners were agreed to pay a sum of
` 2.50 Lac to the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Petitioners have handed over
two drafts of ` 45,000/- each drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, both
dated 10.10.2011 bearing Nos.028951 and 028952 and one cheque
dated 11.10.2011 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector - V, Rohini,
Delhi bearing No.329316 for a sum of ` 1.60 Lac in favour of
respondent Nos.2 & 3, which have been received by them without any
protest.
5. Learned APP on instructions submits that the investigation is
pending as such charge-sheet has not been filed.
6. Learned APP further submits that the offence alleged against the
petitioners is under Section 468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 which
fall in the category of 'non-compoundable' offence as per Section 320
Cr. P. C; and 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, he prayed that till
the outcome of the larger Bench of the Apex Court, present petition
may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. Keeping the MOU dated 17.10.2011 and the fact that respondent
Nos.2 & 3 do not wish to pursue their case against the petitioners, into
view, FIR No.669/2008, registered at police station Rohini, Delhi
against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
10. I find force in the submission of learned APP for State on the
aspect of putting the petitioner No.2 to some terms. However,
petitioner No.1 being 'house-maker' having no independent source of
income is exonerated.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from
petitioner No.2 submits that he is ready to contribute a sum of
` 25,000/- for some welfare purposes.
12. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 is directed to deposit aforesaid sum
of ` 25,000/- in favour of 'Delhi Police Welfare Fund' at Police Head
Quarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, within three weeks from today.
Proof, in original thereof shall be placed on the record by the petitioner
No.2.
13. In view of above, Criminal M.C.No.3727/2011 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 01, 2011
Mk
