Delhi High Court
Dropti Devi & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 19 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.2328/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 19th January, 2012
DROPTI DEVI & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Kamra, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms Rajdipa Behura APP for State
with IO SI Surya Prakash.
Mr.B.K.Sood, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
No.355 dated 29.6.2009 under Section 420/467/471/120-B Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar
against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2.
2. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.2 has
amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and she is no more
interested to pursue the case.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in Court with her
counsel Mr.B.K.Sood. SI Surya Prakash identifies her as respondent
no.2.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 on instructions
submits that she has settled all the issues and is no more interested in
prosecuting the case and she has no objection in case FIR is quashed.
5. Learned APP on the other hand submits that Sections
467/271 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are of non compoundable nature.
6. 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.
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. Chargesheet has already been filed. However, charge is
yet to be framed.
10. I find force in the submission of APP that heavy costs
should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery
has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.
11. I, therefore, impose cost of ` 50,000/- each on the
petitioner nos.1 &2. I further direct the said amount of ` 1 lac shall be
paid in favour of the 'Welfare Fund for Children and Destitute
Women' at Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi within four weeks from today
and proof thereof shall be placed on record.
12. The Superintendent, Nirmal Chaya is further directed to
keep this amount in FDR initially for a period of two years to be
renewed periodically and interest accrued thereupon shall be utilized
for well being of the inmates of the institution.
13. In view of the submission of respondent no.2 as she is no
more interested to pursue the case and in the interest of justice FIR
No.355/2009 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar is quashed
with emanating proceedings thereof.
14. Crl.M.C.2328/2011 is allowed.
15. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 19, 2012
nt
