Sultana Javida & Ors vs State & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5215 Del

$~49
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             CRL.M.C.3566/2011

%             Judgment delivered on:24th October, 2011



SULTANA JAVIDA & ORS    ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.

                    versus

STATE & ORS                    ..... Respondent
                         Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                                   State.

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)

+ Crl. M.A. 12679/2011

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

Crl. M.C. 3566/2011

1. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide FIR no.

70 dated 11.03.2011 case under Section

452/323/452/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been

registered at PS-Sangam Vihar, against the petitioners on

the complaint of respondent no.2.

2. Further submits that respondent no. 2 Balkishore has

amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR vide

MOU dated 07.10.2011, therefore, he does not want to

pursue the case.

3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the Court.

Head Constable Rajinder Prasad has identified him as

Balkishore, S/o, Sh. Shanker Lal.

4. Ld. APP for the state submits that Section 452 is not

compoundable, therefore, in the light of the order passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No. 8989/2010, FIR may

not be quashed till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

5. Admittedly, Ld. APP submits that in the event of

quashing, the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon the

petitioners.

6. 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 fell that unless and

until, the decisions which have been referred above, are set

aside or altered, the same decisions are the precedent and

binding effect.

7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a

cross-case has been registered against the parties and both

the parties have agreed to take the complaint back and co-

operate each other in getting the FIR quashed.

8. The Petitioner and the respondent are staying in the

same locality.

9. In these circumstances, if I do not allow the petition,

then the enmity between the parties shall continue.

10. Since, I have already taken view in Nari Motiram Hira

Vs. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010

decided on 03.02.2011 and in the interest of justice

present FIR no. 70 dated 11.03.2011 and all the proceedings

emanating therefrom are hereby quashed and keeping in

view the financial condition of the petitioner, I am not

inclined to impose costs on petitioner.

11. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 3566/2011 is allowed.

12. Since the present petition is allowed, Crl. M.A. No.

12678/2011 become infructuous and is disposed of as such.

SURESH KAIT,J

OCTOBER 24, 2011 jg