Delhi High Court
Naveen Mathur vs State & Anr on 17 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.3414/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 17th January, 2012
NAVEEN MATHUR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Rajiv Kanwar, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State/R-1.
Respondent No.2 in person with his
father Mr.Kuldeep.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Notice issued. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of Respondent
No.1/State.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide FIR
No.165/2009 dated 19.09.2009 case under Section 307 IPC read with
Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner on the
complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Kanjhawla.
3. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 is a minor,
therefore, father of respondent No.2 has filed affidavit and stated that
he has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR due to the
intervention of the neighbours and common friends since they know to
each other since long, in order to maintain cordial relations, they have
settled the instant matter inter se amongst themselves.
4. Respondent No.2 present with his father Shri Kuldeep. The
father of the respondent No.2 has not rebutted as to what has been
stated by learned counsel for petitioner and further submits that if the
aforesaid FIR is quashed, he has no objection.
5. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP on the other hand submits that
on completion of investigation, matter is pending before learned Trial
Court and as the case is under Section 307 IPC which is of non-
compoundable category, quashing of the FIR is not permissible.
6. In support of her contention, she 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.
7. 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).
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. 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:-
„....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.‟
10. Keeping the above settled law position and the facts and
circumstances of instant case into view, FIR No.165/2009 registered
against the petitioner at police station Kanjhawla and the proceedings
emanating thereto are hereby quashed.
11. Mr.Rajiv Kanwar, learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions
submits that petitioner is ready to contribute a ` 25,000/- for some
welfare purposes. The gesture, advanced by petitioner is appreciable.
12. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount of
` 25,000/- in favour of Delhi Police Welfare Fund, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi within two weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be placed
on record by petitioner.
13. Accordingly, Crl.M.A.No.12124/2011(Stay) does not require
further adjudication and accordingly stands disposed of as such.
14. Consequently, Criminal M.C.No.3414/2011 is allowed and
stands disposed in above terms.
15. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 17, 2012
Mk
