Delhi High Court
Mukesh vs State & Anr. on 23 September, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.3184/2011
% Judgment delivered on:23th September,2011
MUKESH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.R.B. Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANr. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
the State
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. for R-2 with
R-2 in person
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)
Crl. M.A. 11325/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C.No.3184/2011 & Crl. M.A. 11324/2011
1. Issue notice.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State/Respondent
No.1 and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for R-2
accepts notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR
No.100/2009 dated 24.07.2009 a case under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the
petitioner on the complaint of one Devi Sahay at police
station Karol Bagh, Delhi.
4. Further submitted that the respondent No. 2 is the
victim who received injuries due to which the aforesaid case
has been registered.
5. Further submitted that respondent No.2/victim has
amicably settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR
against the petitioner vide MOU dated 23.04.2011 and the
respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case against
the petitioner.
6. I note, petitioner and respondent No.2 both were
husband and wife. Pursuant to the aforesaid MOU the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2
has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 09.06.2011.
7. Respondent No.2 is present in person with her counsel
Shri Sanjeev Kumar, who has identified her as Romil D/o Shri
Manohar Lal. Respondent No.2 submits that she has settled
all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to
pursue the case further against the petitioner. Respondent
No.2 is going to marry in December, 2011. Therefore, she
states that the aforesaid FIR may be quashed. For
identification, she has produced her election card bearing
No.RJN1431527 which is seen and returned.
8. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State submits that
in the instant case the FIR has been registered under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is 'non-
compoundable,'.
9. Learned APP referred the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.)
No.8989/2010 whereby 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.
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. Alternatively, ld. APP for the States submits that the
aforesaid FIR may be quashed with heavy costs.
13. Since, I have taken the same view earlier in catena of
cases, therefore, for uniformity, my view is same. The
respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursing the case
further and their marriage has already been dissolved and
the fact that she is going to marry in December, 2011, in the
interest of justice, keeping the MOU dated 23.04.2011 into
view, FIR No.100/2009 dated 24.07.2009 under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the
petitioner at police station Karol Bagh, Delhi and the
proceedings, if any, emanating thereto are hereby quashed.
14. I find force in the submission of the ld. APP for the
State, but keeping in view the financial position of the
petitioner, I defer in imposing costs on the petitioner.
15. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3184/2011 stands
allowed.
16. Crl. M.A. 11324/2011 stands dismissed as infructuous.
17. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
September 23, 2011
RS
