Delhi High Court
N. K. Tomar & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 17 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~ 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.3444/2011
% Judgment delivered on:17th October, 2011
N. K. TOMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. J. K. Bhola, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP
for State/R-1.
Mr. Saleem Hasan, Adv for R-2.
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 NO
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide
FIR No.444/2007 dated 27.10.2007 case under Section
308/323/336/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with
Section 27 Arms Act has been registered against the
petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police
station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Further submits that respondent No.2 has amicably
settled the all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR with the
petitioners, therefore, he does not wish to pursue present
case any further.
3. Respondent No.2 present in person with his learned
counsel Mr.Saleem Hasan, Advocate, who has duly identified
him as respondent No.2.
4. On instructions, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua
aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to pursue present case
against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
another FIR No.498/2007 has already been compounded by
the petitioners against the respondent No.2.
6. Further respondent No.2 submits that he has no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
7. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State strongly
opposed the petition and submits that in light of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. 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 Vs. 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 State machinery has been used.
8. I find force in the submission of learned APP, however,
keeping in view the decision of Division Bench of Bombay
High Court, in Nari Motiram Hira Vs. 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).
9. I have also taken similar view in a number of cases as
the view already taken by the Division Bench of Bombay
High Court that till above referred three decisions, 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.
10. In the present case, cross cases were registered
between the parties. The FIR No.498/2007 has already been
compounded. If the present FIR is not compounded, it will
be a great injustice for the petitioners.
11. In the circumstances, in view of above, FIR
No.444/2007 under Section 308/323/336/506/34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 read with Section 27 Arms Act registered against
the petitioners at police station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi &
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. Further, I find force in the submission of learned APP for
State. Since the government machinery has been used and
precious time of the court has been consumed. For
substantial justice, costs should be imposed upon the
petitioners.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions from the petitioners submits that petitioner
Nos.1 & 2 are intending to donate some amount for the
welfare purposes.
14. This Court place on record the appreciation on this
gesture advanced by petitioner Nos.1 & 2, therefore, I direct
the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 shall pay a sum of `1.00 lac each.
15. Further direct that total sum of `2.00 lacs shall be
deposited in favour of Principal, Senior Secondary School for
Blind Boys, Sewa Kutir, BBM Depot Road, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi within two weeks from today and proof thereof shall be
placed on the record by petitioners.
16. Keeping the financial position of petitioner Nos.3 to 5,
into view, I refrain in imposing any costs upon them.
17. The amount as donated by the petitioner shall be kept
in FDR. The interest accrued thereon shall be utilised for the
well being of needy children of the school.
18. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3444/2011 is allowed and
disposed of in above terms.
19. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
October 17th 2011/Mk
