Mangesh Tyagi & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 181 Del

$~24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 CRL.M.C. 72/2012

%                 Judgment delivered on: 10th January, 2012

       MANGESH TYAGI & ORS.                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr.S.K. Chaturvedi
                   and Mr. Nishi Ranjan Singh, Advs.

                        versus

       STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.             ..... Respondent
                     Through : Mr.Navi Sharma, APP for State.
                     ASI Jai Prakash, PS-Burari.
                     Respondent no. 2 in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. 286/2012

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. 287/2012

Delay condoned.

+      Crl. M.C. 72/2012

1.     Notice issued.

2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 162

dated 08.06.2010, case under Section 420/468/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS-Burari against the petitioners on the complaint of Respondent no. 2.

4. He further submitted that the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 15.11.2011 between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. Therefore, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the matter. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court, who has not rebutted the contention of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and further submits that if the present FIR is quashed, he has no objection as the matter has been fully settled between the parties. ASI Jai Prakash, PS-Burari has identified respondent no.2.

5. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that during investigation Section 471 has been added and therefore Section 471 and 468 are not compoundable. He 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, he has prayed that till the matter is decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court, instant petition may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, he 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.

6. 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).

7. Recently, the Supreme Court has observed 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.

8. 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.

9. I found force in the submission of ld. APP for the State that Govt. machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed, therefore, I direct the petitioners to pay some amount for the welfare purposes.

10. Sh. S.K. Chaturvedi, ld.Counsel for petitioners on instruction from the petitioners has come forward and submitted that the petitioners are willing to pay some amount for the welfare purpose. I appreciate this gesture. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 are directed to contribute Rs.10,000/- each in favour of Bar "Bar Council of Delhi Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Account". Petitioner no. 3 to 5 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of "Delhi Police Welfare Fund, Police Headquarter, I.P. Estate, New Delhi". The amount shall be deposited within two weeks from today. Proof of

the same shall be placed on record.

11. Keeping the compromise deed dated 15.11.2011, the statement of respondent no. 2 into view, who is no more interested to pursue the present matter and in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR no. 162 dated 08.06.2010 registered at PS-Burari.

12. Crl. M.C. 72/2012 is allowed on the above terms.

13. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 10, 2012 jg