Delhi High Court
Budh Ram & Anr vs State & Anr on 13 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3968/2011
% Judgment delivered on:13th January, 2012
BUDH RAM & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.G.S. Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP
for State.
Mr. R.A. Sharma, Adv for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.18669/2011(delay)
For the reasons explained, delay stands condoned.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3968/2011
1. Learned counsel for petitioners jointly submits that vide FIR
No.390/2003 a case under Section 326/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent
No.2 at police station Karol Bagh.
2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has amicably settled
all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners and he is no
more interested in further pursuing the case any further.
3. Respondent No.2 personally present in the Court with Mr.R.A.
Sharma, who duly identifies him. In addition, respondent No.2 has
produced original voter identity card bearing No.AMN 0569673.
Original seen and returned to him.
4. On instructions, learned counsel submits that respondent No.2
has amicably settled the matter with the petitioners and he is no more
interested in pursuing his case. Respondent No.2 has no objection, if
the present FIR is quashed.
5. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP submits that the offence under
Section 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is non-compoundable and
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 in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors.
v.Radhika & Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011
held 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. Keeping the settlement between the parties and the fact that
petitioner No.2 is no more interested in pursuing his case anymore, in
the interest of justice, FIR No.390/2003 registered against the
petitioners police station Karol Bagh and the proceedings emanating
thereto are hereby quashed.
10. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State,
however, keeping the financial position of petitioners into view as they
are from the lower strata of society, in the interest of justice, I refrain
in imposing any costs upon them.
11. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3968/2011 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 13, 2012
Mk
