Delhi High Court
Zile Singh & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 31 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3573/2011
% Judgment delivered on:31st October, 2011
ZILE SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba APP for State
/R-1. Mr. B.L. Madbhukar, Adv. / R-2 to
7
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)
1. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide FIR
No.674 dated 30.09.1999 case under Section 186/332/
352/34 IPC has been registered against the petitioners on
the complaint of respondent no.2. Respondent no. 3-7 are
the injured persons.
2. Further submits that the Complainant and the injured
persons have amicably settled the issues vide compromise
deed dated 07.09.2011.
3. Respondent no. 2 / Complainant K.V. Radhakrishnan is
personally present in Court along with respondent no. 3 to 7
/ injured. All jointly prayed that they have settled all the
issues qua the aforesaid FIR and do not want to pursue this
case further.
4. Ld. APP for the State has strongly objected to quash the
FIR and submits that recently Hon'ble Supreme Court has
referred three cases 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 to determine the correctness of the decisions vide
case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.)
No.8989/2010. She has prayed that till the decisions of the
larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, FIR may not be
quashed. Alternatively she has prayed that if the court is
inclined to quash the FIR, heavy cost may be imposed on the
petitioners.
5. Since, I have taken view in number of cases, keeping in
view the Judgment in a case Nari Motiram Hira Vs.
Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010
decided on 03.02.2011 whereby the Double Bench of
Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR when the
compoundable offences were there.
6. I am also of the view that till the larger bench of the
Supreme Court has reversed or alter the decisions in cases
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, these Judgments still hold the field.
7. I note that petitioner no. 1 is working as a driver in
Tihar Jail and petitioner no. 2 is the son of petitioner no. 1.
Both the petitioners and respondents were staying in the
same colony of Tihar. Therefore, some altercation took
place between the parties. Now, they have settled the issue.
Since both are staying in the same locality, vide this act, the
enmity between the parties should not be allowed to have an
impact on a harmonious neighbourhood.
8. In the interest of justice, I quash the FIR no. 674 dated
30.09.1999 and emanating proceedings thereto.
9. Petitioner no. 1 and 2 has come forward and wish to
donate the same amount for the welfare purposes. I
therefore, the petitioner no. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.5,000/- each
in favour of Principal / Head Master, Nursery Primary School
for Deaf, D-Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi within 2 weeks from
today. Proof of the same shall be placed on record.
10. Crl. M.C. 3573/2011 is allowed and disposed of
accordingly in the above terms.
11. Since Crl. M.C. 3573/2011 is allowed, Crl.M.A.
12692/2011 become infructuous and disposed of as such.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT,J
OCTOBER 31, 2011
jg
