Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 5 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.816/2012
% Judgment delivered on: March 05, 2012
ANIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Avinash Lakhanpal, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP/R-1.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No. 2869/2012
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 816/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and has produced
his Driving Licence issued by the Transport Authority of NCT of
Delhi.
3 With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up
for final disposal.
4 Vide instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR
No.18/2006 registered at PS Kanjhawala, Delhi under Sections 448,
380,506,342,323,365 and 34 of IPC, against the petitioner on the
complaint of respondent No.2.
5 It is further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2
have amicably settled all their disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and the
respondent No.2 has filed affidavit to this effect which is at Page 12 of
the paper book. It is further submitted that in the circumstances, while
quashing the FIR mentioned above, the instant petition may be
allowed.
6 Learned APP on the other hand submits that in the FIR
mentioned above, Sections 380 and 365 of IPC are non-compoundable.
Charge sheet has already been filed. Charges are yet to be framed.
7. 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
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. However, keeping in view the fact that all the petitioners are
small farmers who have amicably settled all the issues qua the
aforesaid FIR, and keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2
into view; and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No.18/2006
registered at PS Kanjhawala, against the petitioner on the complaint of
respondent No.2 and proceedings emanating therefrom.
12. 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 petitioners who are small farmers, I refrain
from imposing costs upon them.
13. Consequently, Criminal M.C.No.816/2012 is allowed and stands
disposed of in above terms.
14. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 05, 2012
'raj'
