Girender Kumar Sharma vs State and Another

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl. M.A. 913/2012 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl. M.C. 254/2012

Notice issued.

Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State/respondent No.1.

Mr. Faimuddin, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide FIR. 422/2011, a case under Sections 279/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Mandawali, Delhi.

Further submits that vide Compromise Deed dated 11.01.2012, the parties have compromised the matter and respondent No.2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. He is duly identified by SI Narender IO of the case and his counsel.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits that respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case anymore in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Learned APP for State submits Section 279 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is non-compoundable in nature.

Learned APP 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 and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, & 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 petitioner, as the government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

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

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.

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

Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioner as in the process, Government Machinery has been mis-used and precious time of the court has been consumed.

Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State, but keeping in view the fact that petitioner is working in Delhi Police at lower rank, I refrain imposing costs upon him.

Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent No.2 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 422/2011 registered at P.S. Mandawali, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

Criminal M.C. 254/2012 is disposed of.

Dasti.