Delhi High Court
Kala @ Mukesh Kumar & Ors vs State & Ors on 9 April, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1161/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 9th April, 2012
KALA @ MUKESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 4102/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 1161/2012
1 Notice issued.
2 Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
3 Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in the court today.
4 With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the instant
petition is taken up for final disposal.
5 Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash FIR
No.80/2011 registered, for the offences punishable under Sections 354/323/
34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Baba Haridass, on complaint of
respondent No. 2 against petitioners.
6 Further submits that, the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties with the intervention of family members and respectable members of
society, since both the parties reside in the same locality.
7 Respondent No. 2 and 3 are personally present in the court today.
They have been duly identified by IO/SI Nar Singh.
8 Respondents No.2 and 3 submit that the matter has been settled,
therefore, they do not want to pursue the matter further and have no
objection if the FIR mentioned above, is quashed.
9 Ld. APP for State submits that though the investigation has been
completed in the matter but the charge-sheet has not been filed in the trial
court.
10 Ld. APP further submits that the offences committed under Section
354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable in nature as per the
new amendment in Law. Therefore, the instant petition may not be allowed.
11 Learned APP referred the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. 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 v. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-
consideration whether the abovesaid three decisions were decided correctly
or not. Therefore, she has prayed that till the matter is decided by the larger
Bench of the Apex Court, instant petition may be adjourned sine-die.
Alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the FIR is quashed, heavy costs
should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has
been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.
12 The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira v.
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).
13 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 have the binding
precedents.
14 In addition, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika
& Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011 that the cases of
non-compoundable nature can be compounded, certainly not after the
conviction observing as under:-
„...... That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the
complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now
described by her as arising out of some "misunderstanding and
misconception"; will be a futile exercise that will serve no
purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who
are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer
supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the
proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section
482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably
invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of
law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts
below.‟
15 Though, I find force in the submissions made by Ld. APP for State
regarding imposition of costs upon the petitioners, but keeping in view their
financial position, I refrain imposing costs upon them.
16 Keeping in view the above discussion and statements of respondents
No.2 and 3 and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 80/2011 registered
at P.S. Baba Haridass.
17 Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.
18 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 09, 2012
j
