Delhi High Court
Surender Singh Dabas & Ors vs State & Ors on 30 September, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3316/2011
th
Judgment delivered on 30 September, 2011
SURENDER SINGH DABAS & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Rajpal Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP.
Mr. Danvir Singh, Adv. for R-2/Ms.
Laxmi.
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. 11781/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 3316/2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR
No. 152/2009 a case under Sections 498-A/406/328/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the
petitioners at P.S. Kanjhawala on the complaint of
respondent No. 2/Ms. Laxmi.
2. Further submits that vide settlement dated 06.01.2011
the matter has been settled between the parties for a total
sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to be paid by petitioner No. 1 to
respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the said settlement, the
marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has
already been dissolved vide decree of mutual consent
divorce dated 16.09.2011.
3. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court.
She has been duly identified by the IO of the case. She
submits that in pursuance of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, she does not want to pursue the case
further. She has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
4. Petitioner No. 1 who is personally present in the court
today submits that he has brought a pay order of remaining
amount for a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs vide pay order No. 409009
dated 07.09.2011, drawn on the Delhi State Co-operative
Bank Ltd. MCO Karala, Delhi in favour of respondent No.
2/Ms. Laxmi. The petitioner No. 1 has handed over the said
pay order to respondent No. 2. She has accepted the same
without any protest.
5. Learned APP for State submits that Section 328 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable and therefore,
the FIR cannot be quashed.
6. Learned APP for State further 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for
State. Accordingly, I impose Rs.50,000/- each on petitioner
No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 to be deposited in favour of - Delhi
Child Welfare Fund, Department of Women and Child
Development, NCT of Delhi. I further direct to disburse the
same in favour of the Principal, Primary School, B Block,
Kalkajai, for the utilization of the welfare of children of the
school.
10. In case, the Principal of the school has no such bank
account, he/she is directed to get it open within two days
from the receipt of this order.
11. The proof of deposit of cost shall be placed on record.
12. Crl. M.C. 3316/2011 is disposed of allowed in the above
terms.
13. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT,J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
j/RS
