CRL.M.C./3737/2011 of PRAVEEN KISHWAN & ORS. Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI &ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. No. 3727/2011

% Judgment delivered on: 01[st] December, 2011

BALA GARG & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through : Mr.Asit Tewari , Adv

versus

STATE & ORS .

..... Respondents

Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State/ Respondent No.1 with Inspector Sanjay Kumar, PTC Jharoda Kalan and ASI Surender, police station Rohini in person. Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Adv for respondent Nos.2 & 3 with both respondents in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.669/2008, dated 07.10.2008 case under Section 420/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Rohini, Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 Sh.Jawahar Lal Arora. Mr.Sandeep Batra, respondent No.3 is also stated to have been aggrieved by the acts of the petitioners.

Page 1 of 4

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide MOU dated 17.10.2011, respondent Nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled all the issues with the petitioners qua the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, they do not wish to pursue their case any further.

3. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are personally present in the Court with their counsel Mr.Neeraj Gupta. On instructions, from both respondents, learned counsel submits that they do not want to pursue the present case and they have no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the MOU dated 17.10.2011, petitioners were agreed to pay sum of ` 2.50 Lac to the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Petitioners have handed over two drafts of ` 45,000/- each drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, both dated 10.10.2011 bearing Nos.028951 and 028952 and one cheque –dated 11.10.2011 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector V, Rohini, Delhi bearing No.329316 for sum of ` 1.60 Lac in favour of respondent Nos.2 & 3, which have been received by them without any protest.

MOU dated 17.10.2011, petitioners were agreed to pay sum of

5. Learned APP on instructions submits that the investigation is pending as such charge-sheet has not been filed.

6. Learned APP further submits that the offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 which -fall in the category of ‘noncompoundable’ offence as per Section 320 Cr. P. C; and referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian

Crl.M.C.No.3727/2011

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, he prayed that till the outcome of the larger Bench of the Apex Court, present petition may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, prayed that in the event, the FIR is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

7. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011has permitted for compounding of the offences of ‘non-compoundable’ category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. even after discussing Gian Singh (supra).

8. 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.

9. Keeping the MOU dated 17.10.2011 and the fact that respondent Nos.2 & 3 do not wish to pursue their case against the petitioners, into

view, FIR No.669/2008, registered at police station Rohini, Delhi against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

10. I find force in the submission of learned APP for State on the aspect of putting the petitioner No.2 to some terms. However, -petitioner No.1 being ‘housemaker’ having no independent source of income is exonerated.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from petitioner No.2 submits that he is ready to contribute sum of ` 25,000/- for some welfare purposes.

petitioner No.2 submits that he is ready to contribute sum of

12. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 is directed to deposit aforesaid sum of ` 25,000/- in favour of ‘Delhi Police Welfare Fund’ at Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, within three weeks from today. Proof, in original thereof shall be placed on the record by the petitioner No.2.

13. In view of above, Criminal M.C.No.3727/2011 is allowed and stands disposed of.

14. Dasti.

DECEMBER 01, 2011

SURESH KAIT, J

Crl.M.C.No.3727/2011

Page 4 of 4