Delhi High Court
Chotu Pahlwan & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 28 September, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.MC No.3255/2011
% Judgment delivered on:28th September,2011
CHOTU PAHLWAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Nitin Mittal, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Salone Kantroo, Adv. for R-2 & R-3
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. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR
No.306 dated 01.09.2011 was registered under Section
307/324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/54/59 of
Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioners on the complaint of
respondents No.2 and 3 at PS Sarai Rohilla.
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide
settlement dated 21.09.2011, which is at page 21 of the
petition, the matter has been compromised between
respondents No.2 and 3 and the petitioners.
3. He further states that cross-case was registered against
the parties. Pursuant to the settlement dated 21.09.2011 in
Crl.M.C.3253/2011, FIR No.216 dated 23.06.2011 registered
under Section 323/341/379/56/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
PS Sarai Rohilla has already been quashed by this Court,
therefore, in this case also FIR be quashed.
4. Respondents No.2 and 3 are personally present in Court
and are identified by their counsel.
5. Respondents No.2 and 3 submit that in pursuance to the
settlement dated 21.09.2011, they have amicably settled all
the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and they have no objection if
the present FIR is quashed.
6. Both the parties are staying in the same locality and with
the intervention of family members and locality person they
have arrived at the settlement and they want to finish the
enmity between them.
7. Learned APP for State states that in this case the
offence is under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, which is not
compoundable. She has 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 and Anr.
(2008) 9 SCC 677 and 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. She submits that till the outcome of the
larger Bench, the matter may be adjourned sine die.
8. 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 feel 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.
9. In the present case parties are staying in the same
locality and pursuant the abovesaid settlement one FIR No.216
dated 23.06.2011 in Crl.M.C.3253/2011 has already been
quashed, therefore, in the interest of justice I quash FIR No.306
dated 01.09.2011 registered under Section 307/324/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959
against the petitioners on the complaint of respondents No.2
and 3 at PS Sarai Rohilla. Ordered accordingly.
10. Ld. APP submits that while quashing FIR heavy cost should
be imposed on the petitioners as Government machinery has
been utilised and precious time of the Court has been
consumed.
11. I find force in the submission of ld. APP. Therefore, I
impose cost of ì.50,000/- on petitioner No.1 and ì.5,000/- on
petitioner No.2. The said amount shall be deposited in favour of
Middle School for Deaf, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi within 02 weeks
from today.
12. I further direct that amount should be deposited in the
name of Principal of the said school. In case there is no such
back account, the Principal of the said school shall open an
account immediately and thereafter he/she may utilize the
amount for the welfare of deaf children of abovesaid school.
13. CRL.M.C. 3255/2011 is allowed.
14. Dasti.
Crl.M.A.11579/2011 (Stay)
In view of the order passed in CRL.M.C. 3255/2011, this
application is dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
September 28, 2011
Vld/RS
