Delhi High Court
Inderpal Singh @ Babbal Marwah vs State & Anr on 6 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 440/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 6th February, 2012
INDERPAL SINGH @ BABBAL MARWAH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 1520/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 440/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State accepts notice.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. He
also accepts notice.
4. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up
today for final disposal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.
291/2011, a case under Sections 323/452/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
was registered against the petitioner and co-accused persons namely
Sonu and Sandeep Singh at P.S. Sunlight Colony, New Delhi.
6. Further submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2
considering their good relations and intervention of the friends and
relatives sorted out their disputes and differences and they have
undertaken that they will not fight with each other in future and will
maintain good relations.
7. Further submits that the petitioner is never involved in any
criminal activities nor committed any offence in his entire life and he
maintained the peace and tranquility in the locality and having good
relations with the neighbours. The terms of settlement have been
reduced into writing vide Compromise Deed which is annexed as
„Annexure P3‟along with the instant petition.
8. Learned APP for State submits that investigation is at initial
stage and the Police has yet to file Charge-sheet in the matter.
9. Further submits that the offence committed under Section 452 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, 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.
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. Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to
quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs may be imposed
upon the petitioner as in the process, Government Machinery has been
used and precious time of the court has been consumed.
15. Though I find force in the submission made by learned APP for
State regarding imposition of costs upon the petitioner, but keeping in
view his poor financial condition, I refrain imposing costs upon him.
16. Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent
No.2 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 291/2011
registered at P.S. Sunlight colony, New Delhi and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom only qua the petitioner Inderpal Singh @ Babbal
Marwah.
17. I further make it clear that the proceedings against the other co-
accused persons involved in the instant FIR shall continue as per law.
18. Criminal M.C. 440/2012 is disposed of.
19. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2012
j
