Delhi High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State & Ors on 10 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 2574/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 10th January, 2012
+ CRL.M.C. 2574/2011
MANPREET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhanshu Malhotra, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdiipa Behura, APP for
State with SI Raj Kumar, PS Hari
Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits vide FIR No.33 dated
03.02.2011 registered at PS Hari Nagar under Sections 341/308/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner on the complaint of
respondent. Ld. counsel further submits the respondent No.2 has
compromised with the petitioner and he is no more interested to pursue
the case.
2. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court and SI Raj
Kumar of PS Hari Nagar has identified him. He states that he is
presently working as Head Constable in Delhi Police. The incident
took place on 02.02.2011. He alongwith his wife/Pushpenderjeet Kaur
riding on a motorcycle bearing No.DL-4SBC4566, was going to
Lajwanti Garden from jail road for some private work. At about 11:30
PM when he reached at Hari Nagar Depot red light, it was green light
on his side, when he crossed the chowk and moved a little further then
suddenly the petitioner came on motor cycle bearing No.DL4SBD-
5721 Black Pulsar from Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar side and turned to left
side of chowk and came on rail road and at once he turned his
motorcycle to the right side, perhaps he has to go towards Janakpuri or
Tilak Nagar and due to the red light, he had to wait for green light.
Suddenly he came in front of him without waiting for green light and at
once he stopped his motorcycle. He and his wife with great difficulty
saved themselves from falling on the road and above said person was
stopped and that person also stopped his motorcycle and threatened
him by saying that why he had not been paying heed in driving
motorcycle.
3. On this issue, the petitioner abused him and also threatened him
that he will beat him. On this he told firstly you realize your mistake
however he got down from the motorcycle and started beating him.
His wife got down from the motorcycle and objected for his behaviour
and 2-3 persons which came from the shops which were on the
opposite side of the depot and in the garb of mediation caught him and
hit him on head with his kara or some iron implement which he had in
his hand at that time due to which blood started oozing out from right
side of the head and thereafter he was taken to the DDU Hospital
where treatment was started.
4. Respondent No.2 further submits due to the intervention of the
common relatives and friends the matter has been settled and he does
not want to pursue the case further therefore if the present FIR is
quashed he has no objection.
5. Ld. APP on the other hand submits, Section 308 is not
compoundable in nature. 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.
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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in case of Shiji @
Pappu Vs. Radhika and Anr. that the offence cannot be compounded
after conviction, however the Courts have power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. after recording the reasons before 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. In alternative she has further submitted if the court is inclined to
quash the FIR then heavy costs be imposed and since the charge sheet
has been filed however the charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner
and the respondent No.2 are distant relatives therefore, if I do not allow
the petition it will be the futile exercise of the trial court as the
respondent No.2 would not support the prosecution case ultimately the
case may be failed.
10. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, FIR
No.33/2011 at PS Hari Nagar and indemnity proceedings are quashed.
11. I found force in the submissions of the Ld. APP therefore I
impose costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in favour of the School and
Home for Mentally Retarded Children, Sector-I, Avantika, Rohini,
Delhi within two weeks from today. The deposition Slip shall be
placed on record.
12. Crl. M.C. No.2574/2011 is allowed.
13. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 10, 2012/ns
