Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 14 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 917/2012
% Judgment delivered on:14th March, 2012
AMARJEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 3190/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL. M.C. 917/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State /
Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 / complainant is present in court.
3. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.
143/2009 dated 15.04.2009, case under Sections 325/34 Indian Penal Code,
1860 was registered against the petitioners at P.S. Dwarka on the complaint
of respondent No.2.
5. Further submits that initially, the FIR was registered under Sections
324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after investigation, the police filed the
Charge Sheet under Sections 325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. However,
Charges framed against the petitioners under Sections 326/34 Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
7. Ld. Counsel further submits that the parties have amicably settled the
matter and respondent no. 2 / complainant is no more interested to pursue
the case further.
8. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. He has
produced his Driving License for the purpose of his identification issued in
his name by Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
9. He submits that due to the intervention of relatives, common friends
and community members, he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR
for a total sum of Rs.55,000/-, therefore he is no more interested to pursue
the case. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
10. He further submits that he received the entire settlement amount of
Rs.55,000/- by way of Demand Draft No. 553476 dated 14.1.2012 drawn on
Syndicate Bank, Palam, New Delhi.
11. Learned APP for State submits that the offence committed under
Section 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable in nature.
12. Learned APP referred the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010 whereby 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.
13. 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).
14. Therefore, I am also of the opinion 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.
15. 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.‟
16. I found force in the submissions made by learned APP on costs.
Accordingly, I direct petitioners No. 3 and 5 to deposit an amount of
Rs.10,000/- each in favour of "Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee,
New Delhi", within a period of 02weeks from today. Proof of the same shall
be placed on record.
17. I refrain imposing costs upon petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4, keeping in
view their poor financial position.
18. In view of above discussion and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR
No. 143/2009 registered at P.S. Dwarka and all the proceedings emanating
therefrom.
19. Criminal M.C. 917/2012 is allowed on the above terms.
20. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 14, 2012
j/jg
