Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar & 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.3028/2011
% Judgment delivered on:23th September,2011
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Abhishek Kaushik, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State with ASI Pradeep Kumar, police
station Vijay Vihar in person.
Respondent No.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)
1. Issue notice.
2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State/respondent
No.1 and respondent No.2 present in person, accepts notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide
FIR No.388/2009 dated 14.12.2009 a case under Section
452/506/34 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.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State submits that
in the instant case the FIR has been registered under Section
452 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.388/2009 under Section
452/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the
petitioners at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi and the
proceedings 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 10,000/- upon petitioner No.1, who is agriculturist; and a
costs of ì 50,000/- upon petitioner No.3, who is a cable
operator. I defer in imposing any costs upon petitioner Nos.2
& 4 who are Constable and Head Constables in Central Para
Military Forces. I also defer in imposing any costs upon
petitioner No.5, who is a National player of Rugby & recently
had won Bronze Medal.
12. The aforesaid total costs of ì 60,000/- shall be
deposited in favour of the 'Welfare Fund for Children &
Destitute Women' Nirmal Chaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi
within a week from today and proof thereof shall be placed
on the record.
13. Criminal M.C.No.3028/2011 stands allowed and
disposed of in above terms.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
September 23, 2011
Mk
