Delhi High Court
Irfan & Ors vs State & Anr on 13 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 902/2012
% Judgment delivered on:13th March, 2012
IRFAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Matloob Ahmed, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP with SI
Vinay Kumar, PS Bhajan Pura
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. 3134/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
+ CRL.M.C. 902/2012
1. Notice.
2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State/respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court.
3. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up
for final disposal.
4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash
FIR No. 18/2012 dated 22.1.2012 registered at PS Bhajan Pura under
Sections 452/387/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has
submitted that the complainant and the petitioners are living in the
same locality and with the intervention of common friends and the
community members, respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the
aforesaid FIR vide compromise deed dated 22.01.2012. Therefore,
respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue the case any further
against the petitioners. He prays that in the circumstances, the instant
petition may be allowed.
6. Respondent No.2 who is personally present in the court, is
identified as respondent No.2 by SI Vinay Kumar, the I.O. of the case.
It is submitted that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR
against the petitioners, therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the
case any further and has no objection if the FIR mentioned above is
quashed.
7. Learned APP on the other hand submits that due to the scuffle
which took place between the petitioner and respondent No.2,
respondent No.2 received injuries in the present FIR, whereas,
petitioners also received injuries in the same scuffle and the case is
registered against respondent No.2 along with other persons vide FIR
No. 19/2012 dated 22.01.2012, under Sections 308/341/323/506/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Bhajan Pura.
8. He further submits that the offence punishable under Sec. 452
and 387 is not 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, 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.
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 In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the parties are
living in the same locality entered into compromise deed dated
22.1.2012 and keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2 who
is no more interested in pursuing the case any further, the FIR
mentioned above i.e. FIR No. 18/2012 dated 22.1.2012 registered at PS
Bhajan Pura, is hereby quashed.
14 I find force in the submission of learned APP on the part of
costs. I, therefore, while quashing the FIR mentioned above impose
cost of Rs. 10,000/- each on petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in this case, to
be paid within two weeks from today in favour of 'Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee' with intimation to concerned SHO. Proof of
the same also be placed on record. SHO shall ensure the timely
deposition of costs. However, I refrain from imposing cost on
petitioner No.1 and 2, who are working and earning salaries on the
lower side, keeping their financial positions into view.
15. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 902/2012 is allowed in above terms.
16. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 13, 2012
'raj'/jg
