Delhi High Court
Baij Nath Thakur & Ors vs State on 19 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.3463/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 19th October, 2011
BAIJ NATH THAKUR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. with
petitioner No. 1,2 and 3 in
person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Addl. PP with
SI Sanjay Sharma, IO of the case
from P.S. Hauz Khas.
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. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.
321/2011, u/s 288/337/338/304A IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas which
was registered on the complaint of petitioner No. 1 against
petitioner No. 4 and 5.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a
compromise has taken place between the parties and
therefore petitioner No. 1/complainant and petitioner No. 2
and 3, wives of the deceased persons, are agreed to settle
the issue qua the aforesaid FIR and not want to pursue the
case any further.
3. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person. He has been
identified by learned counsel for the petitioner and also by SI
Sanjay Sharma. He states that he has no objection if the FIR
is quashed.
4. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 namely Akhtar Begum, wife of
deceased Ali Ahmed and Reimun Khatoon, wife of deceased
Mohd. Manjar Aalam are also present in person. They have
also been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Additionally, they are also carrying Voter Identity Card No.
DL/02/006/030453 and Ration Card issued of Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, respectively. Name of petitioner No. 3 is at serial No.
3 in the ration card as wife of deceased Mohd. Manjar Aalam.
Original documents seen and returned to the respective
holders. They both jointly state that they do not want to
pursue the matter any further and have no objection if the
FIR in question is quashed.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that since two lives were lost in the instant case and
petitioner No. 1 sustained injuries, therefore, petitioner No. 4
and 5/accused persons wanted to compensate them and
hence a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No. 1 and
Rs.10.00 lakh each to petitioner No. 2 and 3 has been
agreed to be paid by the accused persons.
6. It is further stated that Rs.50,000/- has already been
paid to petitioner No. 2 to 3 and Rs.15,000/- to petitioner
No.1. Further a sum of Rs.9.5 is being paid today to
petitioner No. 2 Akhtar Begum by way of Pay Order No.
008958 dated 18.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh, and
Pay Order No. 008970 dated 12.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.4.5
lakh, both issued by Union Bank of India, Soaminagar, Delhi
branch. The pay orders has been accepted by the petitioner
No. 2 without any objection subject to their realization.
7. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner No. 3 has been handed over two cheques, one for
Rs.5.00 lakh and another for Rs.2.00 lakh in the court today
itself and the cheques shall be honoured on presentation. He
submits that balance amount of Rs.2.5 lakh to petitioner No.
3 and Rs.85,000/- to petitioner No. 1 shall be paid to them by
tomorrow i.e. by 20.11.2011 by way of Pay Order.
8. Learned APP for State has referred the case 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 and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and 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.
9. Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of
the judgment of the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in
Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in
Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 whereby
the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for
compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of
Indian Penal Code which were of 'non-compoundable'
category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and the FIR No.50/2010
registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated
06.02.2010, was quashed. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that unless and until, the decisions in cases which have been
referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions
are the precedent and binding effect.
10. Since the petitioner no. 4 & 5 (accused persons)
have compensated the deceased families and injured
person, therefore, in my opinion the substantial justice would
be if the present petition is allowed.
11. Accordingly the petition is allowed and FIR No.
321/2011, under Sections 288/337/338/304A IPC, P.S. Hauz
Khas and other proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, CRL.M.C.3463/2011 is allowed in the
above terms.
SURESH KAIT,J
OCTOBER 19, 2011
Awanish/RS
