CRL.M.C./3968/2011 of BUDH RAM & ANR Vs STATE & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. No. 3968/2011

% Judgment delivered on:13[th] January, 2012

BUDH RAM & ANR

..... Petitioners Through : Mr.G.S. Sharma, Adv.

versus

STATE & ANR

..... Respondents

Through : Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for State. Mr. R.A. Sharma, Adv for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A.No.18669/2011(delay)

For the reasons explained, delay stands condoned.

Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

+ CRL.M.C. No. 3968/2011

1. Learned counsel for petitioners jointly submits that vide FIR No.390/2003 case under Section 326/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Karol Bagh.

Crl.M.C.No.3968/2011

Page 1 of 4

2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners and he is no more interested in further pursuing the case any further.

3. Respondent No.2 personally present in the Court with Mr.R.A. Sharma, who duly identifies him. In addition, respondent No.2 has produced original voter identity card bearing No.AMN 0569673. Original seen and returned to him.

4. On instructions, learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 has amicably settled the matter with the petitioners and he is no more interested in pursuing his case. Respondent No.2 has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

5. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP submits that the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is non-compoundable and 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, he has prayed that till the matter is decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court, instant petition may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, he 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

Crl.M.C.No.3968/2011 Page 2 of 4

has been consumed.

6. 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).

7. Recently, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v.Radhika & Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011held that the cases of non-compoundable nature can be compounded, certainly not after the conviction.

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 settlement between the parties and the fact that petitioner No.2 is no more interested in pursuing his case anymore, in the interest of justice, FIR No.390/2003 registered against the petitioners police station Karol Bagh and the proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed.

10. Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State, however, keeping the financial position of petitioners into view as they are from the lower strata of society, in the interest of justice, I refrain in imposing any costs upon them.

Page 3 of 4

11. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3968/2011 is allowed and stands disposed of.

12. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

JANUARY 13, 2012 Mk

Crl.M.C.No.3968/2011

Page 4 of 4