Delhi High Court
Rahul Pandit & Ors. vs State & Anr on 13 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 899/2012
% Judgment delivered on:13th March, 2012
RAHUL PANDIT & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Matloob Ahmed, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP with SI
Vinay Kumar, I.O. PS Bhajanpura
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. 3128/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
+ CRL.M.C. 899/2012
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.
19/2012 dated 22.1.2012 registered at PS Bhajan Pura under Sections
308/341/323/506/34 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 and
some other persons received injuries and cross-cases were registered vide
FIR mentioned above and vide FIR No. 18/2012 dated 22.1.2012 under
Sections 452/387/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 wherein respondent No.2,
Sh. Rahul Sharma is the complainant and case was registered against five
accused persons. He further submits that the offence punishable under Sec.
308 is not compoundable
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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.‟
12 In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the parties are living in
the same locality, therefore, they 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. 19/2012 dated 22.1.2012 registered at PS Bhajan Pura, is hereby
quashed.
13 I find force in the submission of learned APP on the part of cost. I,
therefore, impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- each on petitioner Nos. 3, 6 and 8; and
a cost of Rs. 5000/- on Petitioner No.2 to be paid within two weeks from
today in favour of Indigent and disabled Lawyers‟ Account of Bar counsel
of Delhi. Proof of the same be also placed on record.
14. However, I refrain from imposing cost on petitioner No.1 who is
working as a Conductor in the DTC, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 who are serving
on meager salaries and on petitioner No.7 who has just completed his BBA
and is unemployed.
15. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 899/2012 is allowed in above terms.
16. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 13, 2012
'raj'/jg
