Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal & Ors vs State & Ors on 24 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.671/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 24th February, 2012
SOHAN LAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Adnan Ahmad with
Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP
Mr. Ganesh Pandey, Adv. for
R-2,3 & 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. Nos.2350-51/2012
Exemption are allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.As. stand disposed of.
Crl. M. C. No.671/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
3. Mr. Ganesh Pandey, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of R-2,3 & 4.
4. With the consent of the ld counsel of the petitioner and the
respondent the matter has been taken for the disposal.
5. Vide the instant petition; the petitioners are here for quashing of
the FIR No.246/09 registered at P.S. Neb Sarai under Section
308/435/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2 against
petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that vide
MOU dated 02.12.2011, respondents No.2, 3 & 4 have compromised
the matter with the petitioners qua FIR mentioned above, therefore,
they are no more interested to pursue the case further.
7. Respondents No.2, 3 & 4 are present in person with their
counsel Mr. Ganesh Pandey, who duly identified them.
8. On instructions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that respondents No.2, 3 & 4 have amicably settled all the issues qua
aforesaid FIR. Therefore, they are no more interested to pursue the
matter and they have no objection if the FIR No.246/09 registered at
P.S. Nebsarai under Section 308/435/34 IPC is, hereby, quashed.
9. Learned APP on the other hand submits that injuries received by
respondent No.2 are grievous in nature and on the vital part. The
charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed
against the petitioners and the matter is pending for prosecution
evidence.
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, 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 time of the Court has been consumed.
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 decisions 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. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP on costs.
Accordingly, I impose cost of Rs.10,000/- each on petitioners No.2 and
3. I refrain in imposing any cost on petitioner No.1, who is a senior
citizen, aged 75 years and petitioner No.4, who is working on a meagre
salary of Rs.5,500/-.
15. The costs of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the respondents. The
costs of Rs.10,000/- will be paid in favour of Sh. Prempal and
Rs.5,000/- each in favour of respondents No.3 & 4, as compensation
for injuries caused by the petitioners.
16. Keeping in view the statement of respondents and settlement, in
the interest of justice, FIR No.246/09 registered at P.S. Neb Sarai on
the complaint of respondent No.2 against petitioners and proceedings
emanating thereto are hereby quashed.
17. Criminal M.C. No. 671/2012 is allowed and stands disposed of
in above terms.
18. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2012/RB
