Delhi High Court
Vicky Choudhary vs State & Anr on 31 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.153/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 31st January, 2012
VICKY CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajat Wadhwa &
Mr.Nikhil Mehta, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for
State.
Mr.Ankur Sharma, Adv for R-2 with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the FIR
No.114/2010 dated 13.05.2010 registered under Section 341/307/323/
427/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 27/25/59 Arms Act
at police station Krishna Nagar, Delhi on complaint of respondent
No.2.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that qua co-
accused namely Mannu @ Mohit Sharma, the matter has already been
settled on the statement of the complainant vide order dated
29.01.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board-II, 1, Firozshah
Kotla Ground, Delhi Gate, Delhi.
3. He further submitted that respondent No.2 / complainant has
also settled the dispute qua the aforementioned FIR with the petitioner
and he is no more interested to pursue his case against petitioner also.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court with his learned counsel
Mr.Ankur Sharma, who has duly identified him.
5. On instructions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted
that he is no more interested in pursuing his case against petitioner and
if the FIR is quashed, he has no objection.
6. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP on the other hand submits that
the FIR in present case, is under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860
which is heinous one and falls under the category of non-
compoundable offences as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. Therefore, instant
petition may not be allowed.
7. To buttress his contention, he 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 above said 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
pressed into and precious public time 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. Keeping the settlement arrived at between the parties and the
settled law into view, in the interest of justice, FIR No.114/2010
registered at police station Krishna Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of
respondent No.2 and proceedings emanating thereto are hereby
quashed against the petitioner only.
12. I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding putting
some costs upon petitioner.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on
instructions has come forward and submit that the petitioner is a
trained physical instructor, who wishes to contribute some amount /
articles to under-privileged children.
14. This gesture of the petitioner is appreciable. Therefore, I direct
the petitioner to provide the following playing/entertaining items of
branded company to the "School and Home for Mentally retarded
Children, Avantika, Sector I, Rohini, Delhi" within two weeks from
today:-
S.No. Nomenclature Quantity
14. The Principal / Incharge of said School is directed to ensure the
quality and quantity of above items and issue receipt thereof to the
petitioner, which shall be placed on record by petitioner.
15. The Principal is further directed to provide above items to the
children of school on random basis so that children of the school may
involve in the activities, which will be helpful to their mental
development.
16. Consequently, Criminal M.C.No.153/2012 is allowed and stands
disposed of in above terms.
17. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 31, 2012
Mk
