Delhi High Court
Inder Raj @ Inder Ram & Ors vs State & Ors on 1 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 382/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 1st February, 2012
INDER RAJ @ INDER RAM & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy
counsel for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned
APP.
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv. for R2 along with
R2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 1324/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 382/2012
1 Notice issued.
2 Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy counsel for Ms. Rajdipa
Behura, learned counsel for State accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent No.1.
3 Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
4 With the consent of both the parties, the instant petition is taken
up for final disposal.
5 Learned counsel for both the parties have jointly stated that vide
FIR No. 596 dated 15.08.2007, a case under Sections 308/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Yamuna Vihar/Gokul Puri,
Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
6 Further submit that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have
amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and the parties are
no more interested to pursue the matter further.
7 Respondent No.2 Pandit Rukam Singh/complainant is personally
present in the court today. He has been duly identified by his counsel.
8 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits
that respondent No. 2 is not interested to pursue the aforesaid FIR and
he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. It is further
submitted he received simple injuries and no stitches were applied on
the injury and he was discharged on the same day from the hospital.
9 Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been
filed, charges have been framed and the matter is pending for recording
Prosecution Evidence before the learned trial court.
10 Further submits that offences committed under Section 308
Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable in nature.
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 used and precious
time of the Court 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 are 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 the learned APP
for State but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are working as
labourers and belong to poor strata of society, I refrain imposing costs
upon them.
16 In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, I quash the
FIR No. 596/2007 registered at P.S. Yamuna Vihar/Gokal Puri, Delhi
and all the emanating proceedings emanating therefrom.
17 Criminal M.C. 382/2012 is allowed.
18 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2012
j
