Delhi High Court
Ravinder & Ors vs State & Anr on 28 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 735/2012
% Judgment delivered on:28th February, 2012
RAVINDER & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Anoop Gupta, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
HC Lakhami Singh, PS-New Ashok Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 2604/2012 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. 735/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State / respondent no. 1.
3. Respondent no. 2 is present in person.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 551
dated 20.12.2009 case under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent
no. 2 at PS-New Ashok Nagar.
5. It is further submitted that during investigation, Section 326 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 also added.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits, thereafter, vide settlement dated
10.07.2011 arrived at between the parties by which petitioners and
respondent no. 2 have compromised all the issues qua the aforesaid
FIR. Therefore, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the
case further.
7. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court. IO of the
case HC Lakhami Singh has identified him.
8. Respondent no. 2 submits that he has settled all the issues qua
the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, therefore, he is no more
interested to pursue the case further and has no objection, if the FIR
referred above is quashed.
9. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that initially FIR mentioned
above was registered under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
However, during investigation, on considering the MLC, as the injuries
were grievous in nature, Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
further added. She further submits that charge-sheet has not been filed
because of the fact respondent no.2/complainant has settled all the
issues with the petitioners.
10. Ld. APP further submits that Section 326 is non compoundable
and has 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.
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
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. Keeping the settlement dated 10.07.2011, statement of
respondent no. 2 that he is no more interested to pursue the case and in
the interest of justice, FIR no.551 dated 20.12.2009 registered at PS-
New Ashok Nagar, is hereby quashed.
15. Though, I find force in the submission of ld. APP on costs,
however, keeping the financial position of the petitioners into view, I
refrain in imposing costs upon them.
16. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 735/2012 is allowed on the above terms.
17. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
jg
