Delhi High Court
Kamdev & Ors vs State on 20 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.987/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 20th March, 2012
KAMDEV & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP
for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Notice issued.
2. Learned APP Ms.Rajdipa Behura accepts notice on behalf of
respondent/State.
3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the
FIR No.6/2006 registered at P.S. Anand Vihar for the offences
punishable under Sections 341/323/308/34 I.P.C. against the
petitioners No.2 to 10 on the complaint of petitioner No.1. During
investigation, Sections 147/148/149 I.P.C. were added and accordingly
charge sheet was filed by the State for the offence punishable under
Sections 147/148/149 I.P.C. and Section 341 I.P.C. read with Section
141 I.P.C. and charges under Section 325/308 I.P.C. were framed.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have now
amicably settled the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and petitioner No.1
complainant is no more interested to pursue the case against petitioners
No.2 to 10, therefore, instant petition may be allowed.
6. Petitioner No.1/complainant is personally present in the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner identify petitioner No.1 as
Kamdev s/o Shri Jugal Paswan.
8. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that Sections
308/147/148/149 I.P.C. are non-compoundable.
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 decisions 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. Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of petitioner
No.1/complainant into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR
No. 6/2006 registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
14. Though I find force in the submissions of ld. APP on costs, but
keeping the financial position of petitioners No.2 to 10/accused into
view, I refrain imposing cost on them.
15. Criminal M.C. 987/2012 is disposed of.
16. Dasti.
Crl.M.A.3480/2012(stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 20, 2012
ks
