CRL.M.C./3255/2011 of CHOTU PAHLWAN & ORS. Vs STATE & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.MC No.3255/2011

% Judgment delivered on:28[th] September,2011

CHOTU PAHLWAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Nitin Mittal, Adv.

Versus

STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/R-1 Mr. Salone Kantroo, Adv. for R-2 & R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

NO NO NO

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR No.306 dated 01.09.2011 was registered under Section 307/324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioners on the complaint of respondents No.2 and 3 at PS Sarai Rohilla.

2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide

CRL.MC No.3255/2011

Page 1 of 5

settlement dated 21.09.2011, which is at page 21 of the petition, the matter has been compromised between respondents No.2 and 3 and the petitioners.

3. He further states that cross-case was registered against the parties. Pursuant to the settlement dated 21.09.2011 in Crl.M.C.3253/2011, FIR No.216 dated 23.06.2011 registered under Section 323/341/379/56/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Sarai Rohilla has already been quashed by this Court, therefore, in this case also FIR be quashed.

4. Respondents No.2 and 3 are personally present in Court and are identified by their counsel.

5. Respondents No.2 and 3 submit that in pursuance to the settlement dated 21.09.2011, they have amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

6. Both the parties are staying in the same locality and with

the intervention of family members and locality person they have arrived at the settlement and they want to finish the enmity between them.

7. Learned APP for State states that in this case the offence is under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, which is not

CRL.MC No.3255/2011 Page 2 of 5

compoundable. She has referred the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. 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 and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs, State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the abovesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not. She submits that till the outcome of the larger Bench, the matter may be adjourned sine die.

8. Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. inCrl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of Indian Penal Code which were of ‘non-compoundable’ category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed. Therefore, I feel that unless and CRL.MC No.3255/2011 Page 3 of 5

until, the decisions which have been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the precedent and binding effect.

9. In the present case parties are staying in the same locality and pursuant the abovesaid settlement one FIR No.216 dated 23.06.2011 in Crl.M.C.3253/2011 has already been quashed, therefore, in the interest of justice I quash FIR No.306 dated 01.09.2011 registered under Section 307/324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioners on the complaint of respondents No.2 and 3 at PS Sarai Rohilla. Ordered accordingly.

10. Ld. APP submits that while quashing FIR heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioners as Government machinery has been utilised and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

11. I find force in the submission of ld. APP. Therefore, I impose cost of ì.50,000/- on petitioner No.1 and ì.5,000/- on petitioner No.2. The said amount shall be deposited in favour of Middle School for Deaf, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi within 02 weeks from today.

12. I further direct that amount should be deposited in the

CRL.MC No.3255/2011 Page 4 of 5

name of Principal of the said school. In case there is no such back account, the Principal of the said school shall open an account immediately and thereafter he/she may utilize the amount for the welfare of deaf children of abovesaid school.

13. CRL.M.C. 3255/2011 is allowed.

14. Dasti.

Crl.M.A.11579/2011 (Stay)

In view of the order passed in CRL.M.C. 3255/2011, this application is dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J

September 28, 2011 Vld/RS