Delhi High Court
Teka Singh @ Titu & Ors. vs State & Anr on 18 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.189/2012
% Judgment delivered on:18th January, 2012
TEKA SINGH @ TITU & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Avinash Lakhanpal, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP with SI
Bansi Lal, PS Roop Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 705/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
+ Crl.M.C. 189/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent
No.1. Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR
No.180/2011 dated 22.11.2011, a case under Sections 323/324/354/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS Roop Nagar against the
petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2.
4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has settled
all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR due to the intervention of the local
people and common friends. Learned counsel further submits that
respondent No.2 and the petitioners are from the same family, and
therefore, just to stop enmity he has settled the matter with the
petitioners.
5. Respondent no.2 is present in person who does not dispute the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and states that if the
present FIR is quashed, he has no objection.
6. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the offence under
Section 324 is not compoundable and submits that the Division Bench
of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
dated 23rd November, 2010 in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010 has referred
the issues to the larger Bench, which were earlier decided in the case of
B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and
Manoj Sharma Vs, State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 and has observed
that Section 320 Cr. P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable,
certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the
Court and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7)
of the Code.
7. He submits that keeping in view the judgment in the case
mentioned above, the instant case may be adjourned sine die till the
disposal by the Larger Bench. He further submits that if this court is
still inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs be imposed.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. In addition, 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.‟
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the petitioners
except petitioner No.5 are having dairy and they are in the business of
selling milk, therefore, they shall supply milk for 15 days to the
Children and destitute women at Nirmal Chhaya, Jail Road, Hari
Nagar, Delhi.
12. Accordingly all the petitioners No.1 to 4 are directed to supply
25 litre milk each at Nirmal Chhaya. The milk shall be distributed daily
to all the inmates of all homes situated there.
13. The superintendent, Nirmal Chhaya is further directed to ensure
the purity of milk on daily basis.
14. In view of above discussion, FIR No.180/2011 registered at PS
Roop Nagar against the petitioners and proceedings emanating thereto
are hereby quashed.
15. Criminal M.C.No.189/2012 is allowed and disposed of in above
terms.
16. Order dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 18, 2012
'raj'
