CRL.M.C./3463/2011 of BAIJ NATH THAKUR & ORS Vs STATE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C.3463/2011

% Judgment delivered on: 19[th] October, 2011

BAIJ NATH THAKUR & ORS ..... Petitioner

Through : Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. with petitioner No. 1,2 and 3 in person. petitioner No. 1,2 and 3 in person.

versus

STATE ..... Respondent

Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Addl. PP with SI Sanjay Sharma, IO of the case from P.S. Hauz Khas. SI Sanjay Sharma, IO of the case from P.S. Hauz Khas.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.

321/2011, u/s 288/337/338/304A IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas which was registered on the complaint of petitioner No. 1 against petitioner No. 4 and 5.

Crl.M.C. 3463/2011

Page 1 of 5

2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that compromise has taken place between the parties and therefore petitioner No. 1/complainant and petitioner No. 2 and 3, wives of the deceased persons, are agreed to settle the issue qua the aforesaid FIR and not want to pursue the case any further.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person. He has been identified by learned counsel for the petitioner and also by SI Sanjay Sharma. He states that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

4. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 namely Akhtar Begum, wife of deceased Ali Ahmed and Reimun Khatoon, wife of deceased Mohd. Manjar Aalam are also present in person. They have also been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Additionally, they are also carrying Voter Identity Card No. DL/02/006/030453 and Ration Card issued of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, respectively. Name of petitioner No. 3 is at serial No. 3 in the ration card as wife of deceased Mohd. Manjar Aalam. Original documents seen and returned to the respective holders. They both jointly state that they do not want to pursue the matter any further and have no objection if the

Crl.M.C. 3463/2011

Page 2 of 5

FIR in question is quashed.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since two lives were lost in the instant case and petitioner No. 1 sustained injuries, therefore, petitioner No. 4 and 5/accused persons wanted to compensate them and hence sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No. 1 and Rs.10.00 lakh each to petitioner No. 2 and 3 has been agreed to be paid by the accused persons.

6. It is further stated that Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to petitioner No. 2 to 3 and Rs.15,000/- to petitioner No.1. Further sum of Rs.9.5 is being paid today to petitioner No. 2 Akhtar Begum by way of Pay Order No. 008958 dated 18.10.2011 for sum of Rs.5.00 lakh, and Pay Order No. 008970 dated 12.10.2011 for sum of Rs.4.5 lakh, both issued by Union Bank of India, Soaminagar, Delhi branch. The pay orders has been accepted by the petitioner No. 2 without any objection subject to their realization.

7. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No. 3 has been handed over two cheques, one for Rs.5.00 lakh and another for Rs.2.00 lakh in the court today itself and the cheques shall be honoured on presentation. He

Crl.M.C. 3463/2011

Page 3 of 5

submits that balance amount of Rs.2.5 lakh to petitioner No. 3 and Rs.85,000/- to petitioner No. 1 shall be paid to them by tomorrow i.e. by 20.11.2011 by way of Pay Order.

8. Learned APP for State 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.

9. 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

Crl.M.C. 3463/2011 Page 4 of 5

registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless and until, the decisions in cases which have been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the precedent and binding effect.

10. Since the petitioner no. 4 & 5 (accused persons) have compensated the deceased families and injured person, therefore, in my opinion the substantial justice would be if the present petition is allowed.

11. Accordingly the petition is allowed and FIR No. 321/2011, under Sections 288/337/338/304A IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas and other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, CRL.M.C.3463/2011 is allowed in the above terms.

SURESH KAIT,J

OCTOBER 19, 2011

Awanish/RS

Crl.M.C. 3463/2011

Page 5 of 5