Delhi High Court
Murari Lal Sharma vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.3824/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 11th January, 2012
MURARI LAL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Robin Kamra, Advocate
with petitioner in person.
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with
ASI Ram Gopal, PS Mukherjee
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.
507/2006 PS Mukherjee Nagar dated 7.11.2006 a case under Section
336/506 read with Sections 27/30/54/59 of the Arms Act has been
registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has amicably
settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, therefore, he does not want
to pursue the case any further against the petitioner.
2. Respondent No.2 is present in person who is identified by ASI
Ram Gopal Singh, PS Mukherjee Nagar. He submits that he has settled
all the issues and is not interested pursuing the case. Respondent No.2
and the petitioners are residing in the same locality, in the same
building, therefore, due to intervention by some common friends, he
does not want to pursue the case, and he has no objection if the FIR in
question is quashed.
3. Learned APP, on the other hand submits that the offence under
Sections 336/506 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable in
nature, and therefore, till the matter is decided by the larger Bench of
the Apex Court, instant petition may be adjourned sine-die or in
alternative, if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy cost be
imposed on the petitioner. She has referred to the decision by the
Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010.
4. Recently, 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:-
„Coming to the case at hand we are of the view that the
incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to
the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each
other. It was not a case of broad day light robbery for
gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute
between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been
resolved by them. 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.‟
5. I find force in the submissions of learned APP. Therefore, as the
government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court
has been consumed, the petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- in favour of
the Welfare Fund for Children and Destitute Women at Nirmal
Chhaya, Jail Road, Tihar, Delhi within four weeks from today, proof of
which shall be placed on record.
6. The Superintendent, Nirmal Chhaya is directed to initially keep
this money in the FDR for a period of two years and the interest
accrued thereon shall be utilized for the well-being of the children and
destitute women.
7. The FIR No. 507/2006 PS Mukherjee Nagar dated 7.11.2006, is
hereby quashed.
8. The CRL.M.C. 3824/2011 stands disposed of.
9. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 11, 2012
'raj'
