Delhi High Court
Bhagwan Dass & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 2 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.774/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 2nd March, 2012
BHAGWAN DASS & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma and
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with
ASI Charan Dass, PS Mandir Marg.
Mr. K.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-2 with
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.2724/2012(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL.M.C. No.774/2012
1. Issue notice.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the
State.
3. Mr.K.K. Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.2.
4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of
the FIR No. 344/2005 dated 01.09.2005 under Sections 308/323/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, New
Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
respondent No.2 as well as the petitioners are known to each other
since long and on some petty issue some altercation took place
between them due to which respondent No.2 received injuries. In the
MLC of respondent No.2, the doctor has opined the injury to be
„simple in nature caused with blunt weapon‟.
6. It is further submitted that since they are living in the same
locality and they belong from the lower strata of the society, with the
intervention of the locality people, they have amicably settled all the
issues qua the aforesaid FIR. He further submitted that the respondent
No.2/complainant is no more interested to pursue the case further,
therefore, the instant petition may be allowed.
7. Respondent No.2/complainant is personally present in the Court
with his counsel Mr. K.K. Sharma.
8. ASI Charan Dass, IO of the case, is present in the Court and
identified the respondent No.2.
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted
that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR,
therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the case further, and has
no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
10. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that in the present
case the petitioners inflicted injuries on the person of respondent No.2
which were though simple in nature but were caused by a blunt object.
Therefore, a case under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 had been registered against the petitioners, which is non-
compoundable in nature.
11. Learned APP has referred the decisions of the 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.
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. 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.‟
15 Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to
quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs be imposed upon
the petitioners as in the process, Government Machinery has been
pressed into and precious time of the court has been consumed.
16. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the
respondent No.2 live in jhuggi cluster and they are very poor people
belonging from the very lower strata of the society, they have amicably
settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, and also keeping in view
the statement of respondent No.2 into view; and in the interest of
justice, I quash FIR No. 344/2005 dated 01.09.2005 registered at P.S.
Mandir Marg, New Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
17. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding
imposing costs on the petitioners, however, keeping in view the
financial position of the petitioner No.1, who is working on a meagre
salary of Rs.6,000/- p.m., and other petitioners are his relatives, I
refrain from imposing costs upon them.
18. Consequently, Criminal M.C.No.774/2012 is allowed and stands
disposed of in above terms.
19. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 02, 2012
RS
