Delhi High Court
Krishna Devi & Anr vs State on 14 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 545/2012
% Judgment delivered on:14th February, 2012
KRISHNA DEVI & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv. for P1.
Mr. R.N. Vats, Adv. for P2.
Both the petitioners in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 1914/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 545/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.
3. The instant petition has been filed jointly by petitioner
No.2/complainant and petitioner No.1/accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.735
dated 05.08.1999, a case under Sections 420/468/418/419/471/211
/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against petitioner
No.1/accused on complaint of petitioner No.2 at P.S. Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the matter has been
amicably settled between the petitioners and petitioner
No.2/complainant is no more interested to pursue the case further
against petitioner No.1
6. Petitioner No.2 is personally present in the court today. She has
been duly identified by her counsel, Mr. R.N. Vats, Advocate.
7. On instructions, learned counsel for petitioner No.2 submits that
all the disputes qua the aforementioned FIR has already been settled
and he is no more interested to pursue the case. She has no objection if
the FIR is quashed.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that Charge-sheet has already
been filed in the trial court and Charges have also been framed against
petitioner No. 1.
9. He further submits that offences committed under Sections
468/471/211/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable
in nature.
10. 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, he has prayed that
till the matter is decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court, instant
petition may be adjourned sine-die.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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.‟
14. Ld. APP for State further submits that in the process
Government Machinery has been mis-used and precious time of the
court has been consumed, therefore, if this court is inclined to quash
the FIR in the present case, heavy costs should be imposed upon the
petitioner No.1/accused.
15. Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP
for State, but keeping in view the fact that petitioner No.1 is a widow
lady and a home maker, she has no independent source of earning, I
refrain imposing costs upon her.
16. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the petitioners
and statement of petitioner No.2 and in the interest of justice, I quash
the FIR No. 735/1999 registered at P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
17. Criminal M.C. 545/2012 is allowed in the above terms.
18. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
j
