CRL.M.C./988/2012 of BHARAT LAL & ORS Vs STATE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 988/2012

% Judgment delivered on: 20[th] March, 2012

BHARAT LAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.C.No.988/2012

1.Notice issued.

2. Learned APP Mr.Navin Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State.

3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR No.7/2006 registered at P.S. Anand Vihar for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/308/34 I.P.C. against the

Crl.M.C.No.988/2012

Page 1 of 4

petitioners No.2 to 7 on the complaint of petitioner No.1. Charges were not framed for the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have now amicably settled the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and petitioner No.1 complainant is no more interested to pursue the case against petitioners No.2 to 7, therefore, instant petition may be allowed.

6. Petitioner No.1/complainant is personally present in the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner identify petitioner No.1 as Bharat Lal s/o Shri Bhawani Din.

8. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that Sections 308/147/148/149 I.P.C. are non-compoundable.

Learned APP referred the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010whereby 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 1to 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 should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.

10. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram

Crl.M.C.No.988/2012 Page 2 of 4

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).

11. 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 decisions hold the field and are the binding precedents.

12. In addition, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011that 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 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 wasteful exercise by the Courts below.‟

13. Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of petitioner No.1/complainant into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR

No. 7/2006 registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

14. Though I find force in the submissions of ld. APP on costs, but keeping the financial position of petitioners No.2 to 7/accused into view, I refrain imposing cost on them.

15. Criminal M.C. 988/2012 is disposed of.

16. Dasti.

Crl.M.3481/2012(stay)

Dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 20, 2012