Delhi High Court
Anil Kapoor vs State & Ors on 30 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1119/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 30th March, 2012
ANIL KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Vaibhav Sinha, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
Mr. Navin Singh, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 3941/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.A. 3942/2012 (Delay)
Delay condoned. The application is disposed of.
CRL. M.C. 1119/2012
1 Notice issued.
2 Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.
3 With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is
taken up for disposal today.
4 Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 14 dated
12.01.2005, a case was registered against the petitioners on complaint of
complainant/respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections
403/406/418/420/468 IPC at P.S. Vasant Vihar, Delhi.
5 Further submits that all the disputes between the parties have
amicably been settled vide compromise dated 07.02.2009. In view of the
said compromise, respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue the case
and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. An affidavit to this effect is
annexed with the petition at page 8.
6 Respondent No.2 is present in person in the court today. For his
identification, he has produced his Driving License issued by Transport
Department, NCT of Delhi vide No. P03042005448846. The same has been
returned to him after perusal.
7 Respondent No. 2 submits that in view of the settlement arrived at
between him and petitioner; he does not want to pursue the abovementioned
FIR. He has no objection if the instant FIR is quashed.
8 Ld. APP on the other hand submits that the Charge-sheet has been
filed however, charges are yet to be framed.
9 Further submits that the offences punishable under Sections 468 IPC
are non-compoundable in nature, therefore, the instant petition may not be
allowed.
10 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
may be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been
pressed into and precious public time has been consumed in this case.
11 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).
12 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.
13 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.‟
14 I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State on
costs.
15 Ld. counsel for the petitioner, at this stage has come forward and upon
instructions, submits that petitioner is ready to contribute a sum of Rs.1lacs
towards welfare purposes.
16 I appreciate this gesture of petitioner.
17 Accordingly I direct petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1lacs in favour of
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 04weeks from
today. Proof of the same shall be placed on record.
18 Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent No.2
into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 14/2005 registered at
P.S. Vasant Vihar, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
19 Criminal M.C.1119/2012 is disposed of on above terms.
20 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 30, 2012
j
