Delhi High Court
Gulshan Kapoor vs State & Anr on 24 April, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.4378/2011
% Judgment delivered on:24th February, 2012
GULSHAN KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Manoranjan, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
Mr. Anangpal Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits vide FIR No.
466/1991 dated 26.11.1991 u/s 420/468/471/120B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was registered at PS Jahangirpuri, Delhi, against the
petitioner on the complaint of the respondent no. 2.
2. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has amicably settled
all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he is not more interested to
pursue the case further. Therefore, the instant petition may be allowed
and aforementioned FIR may also be quashed.
3. Respondent no. 2, Sh. Raman Bhatia who is personally present
in the court who has been identified by his counsel Anangpal Singh, as
respondent no.2. He has submitted that he has settled all the issues and
prayed to quash the FIR, as he not interested to pursue the case further.
If the FIR mentioned above thereto is quashed, he has no objection.
4. It is further submitted that as per the settlement, the petitioner
agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in which Rs. 1 lac has already been
received by him and Rs. 1 lac in case has been received in the court
itself.
5. Therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the case further and
he has no objection if the instant FIR and proceedings thereto are
quashed.
6. Learned APP on the other hand submits that after investigation,
chargesheet filed u/s 468/420/471/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860;
however, Section 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-
compoundable.
7. 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 above said 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.
8. 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).
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 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.‟
11. It is further submitted that in charge sheet, two persons have
been sent for trial apart from the petitioner. Petitioner has informed this
court that co-accused Sh.Krishan Lal has already been expired.
12. Keeping the statement of respondent no.2 into view, FIR No.
466/91 dated 26.11.1991 registered at PS Jahangirpuri on the
complaint of respondent no.2 against petitioner and proceedings
emanating thereto are hereby quashed.
13. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding
putting the petitioner to some terms; however, considering the financial
status of petitioner, I am not inclined to impose any cost upon him.
14. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. No. 4378/2011 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
15. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2012
ac
