Delhi High Court
Rekha Bhaskar & Anr vs State & Anr on 20 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 929/2011
% Judgment delivered on:20th January, 2012
REKHA BHASKAR & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gaurav Garg, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State.
Mr. D.V. Goyal, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1 Learned counsels for the parties jointly state that vide FIR No.
572 dated 27.07.2007, a case under Sections 420/468/471 IPC was
registered at P.S. Mangolpuri, Delhi against the petitioners on
complaint of respondent No.2/complainant.
2 Further submits that the parties have settled their disputes and
respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case further.
3 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. She
is duly identified by her counsel.
4 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits on instructions
that respondent No. 2 has settled all the disputes and she does not
want to pursue the matter. She has no objection if the present FIR is
quashed.
5 Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been
filed and the matter is pending for framing of Charge in the learned
trial court.
6 She further submits that the offences committed under Sections
468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable in nature.
7 Learned APP refers 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.
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 APP further submits that if this court is inclined to
quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs shall be imposed
upon the petitioners as in the process, Government Machinery has
been consumed and precious time of the court has been misused.
12 I find force in the submission made by learned APP for State
and accordingly, I direct petitioner No.2 to deposit Rs.50,000/- in
favour of Principal/ Head Master, School and Home for Mentally
retarded Children, Avantika, Rohini, Sector I, Delhi. The proof of the
payment of costs shall be placed on record within 02 weeks from
today.
13 The principal/Head Master is directed to keep the above
mentioned amount in FDR initially for a period 02 years with any
Nationalized bank and thereafter get it renewed periodically. The
interest accrued thereon shall be utilized for the well being of the
needy children of the school.
14 Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent
No.2 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 572/2007
registered at P.S. Mangolpuri, Delhi and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
15 Criminal M.C. 929/2011 is disposed of.
16 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 20, 2012
j
