Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Suresh Pal Singh & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4734 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4734 Del
Judgement Date : 23 September, 2011

Delhi High Court
Suresh Pal Singh & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 23 September, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL.M.C.No.3010/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:23th September,2011

SURESH PAL SINGH & ORS.                  ..... Petitioners
                   Through : Mr.Kundan Kumar, Adv.

                      versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                 ..... Respondent
                   Through : Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for State
                   with ASI Pradeep Kumar, police station
                   Vijay Vihar in person.
                   Mr.Abhishek Kaushik, Adv for R2 - R6.

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. Issue notice.

2. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State/Respondent No.1

and Mr.Abhishek Kaushik, learned counsel for R-2 to R-6

accepts notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide

FIR No.387/2009 dated 14.12.2009 a case under Section

308/427/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against

the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police

station Vijay Vihar, Delhi.

4. Further submitted that compromise has been taken

place with the intervention of the common friends and

relatives and members of the locality on 20.07.2011 and the

respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case against

the petitioners.

5. Respondent No.2 is present in person, who has been

duly identified by ASI Pradeep Kumar, police station Vijay

Vihar. Respondent No.2 submits that he has settled all the

issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to pursue

the case further against the petitioners, therefore, the FIR

may be quashed.

6. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State submits that in

the instant case the FIR has been registered under Section

308 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is 'non-compoundable'.

7. Learned APP 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 & 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.

Alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the FIR is

quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the

petitioners.

8. 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 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. 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.

10. In the present case also, since I have taken the same

view earlier, in the interest of justice, keeping the settlement

dated 20.07.2011 into view, FIR No.387/2009 under Section

308/427/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the

petitioners at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi and the

proceedings, if any, emanating thereto are hereby quashed.

11. I find force in the submissions of learned APP for the

State, therefore, while quashing the FIR, I impose a costs of

ì 50,000/- each upon petitioner No.1, who is running a plastic

factory; petitioner No.2, who is cable operator and upon

petition No.4, who is running a flour mill. I defer in

imposing any costs upon petitioner Nos.3 & 5 who are

workers only in the factory.

12. The aforesaid total costs of ì1.50lacs shall be deposited

in favour of the 'Welfare Fund for Children and Destitute

Women' Nirmal Chaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi within a

week from today and proof thereof shall be placed on the

record.

13. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3010/2011 stands allowed

and disposed of in above terms.

14. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

September 23, 2011 Mk

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter