Delhi High Court
Girender Kumar Sharma vs State & Anr. on 23 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 254/2012
% Judgment delivered on:23rd January, 2012
GIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State
with IO/SI Narender.
Mr. Faimuddin, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 913/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C. 254/2012
1 Notice issued.
2 Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent No.1.
3 Mr. Faimuddin, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No. 2.
4 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide FIR. 422/2011,
a case under Sections 279/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner
at P.S. Mandawali, Delhi.
5 Further submits that vide Compromise Deed dated 11.01.2012,
the parties have compromised the matter and respondent No.2 has no
objection if the present FIR is quashed.
6 Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. He is
duly identified by SI Narender IO of the case and his counsel.
7 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits
that respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case anymore in view
of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
8 Learned APP for State submits Section 279 Indian Penal Code,
1860 is non-compoundable in nature.
9 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, 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
petitioner, as the government machinery has been used and precious
time of the Court has been consumed.
10 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).
11 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.
12 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.‟
13 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 petitioner as in the process, Government Machinery has been
mis-used and precious time of the court has been consumed.
14 Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP
for State, but keeping in view the fact that petitioner is working in
Delhi Police at lower rank, I refrain imposing costs upon him.
15 Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent
No.2 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 422/2011
registered at P.S. Mandawali, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
16 Criminal M.C. 254/2012 is disposed of.
17 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 23, 2012/j
