Manpreet Singh vs State and Others

Suresh Kait, J.—Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits vide FIR No. 33 dated 03.02.2011 registered at PS Had Nagar under Sections 341/308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent. Ld. counsel further submits the respondent No. 2 has compromised with the petitioner and he is no more interested to pursue the case.

Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court and SI Raj Kumar of PS Hari Nagar has identified him. He states that he is presently working as Head Constable in Delhi Police. The incident took place on 02.02.2011. He alongwith his wife/Pushpenderjeet Kaur riding on a motorcycle bearing No. DL-4SBC4566, was going to Lajwanti Garden from jall road for some private work. At about 11:30 PM when he reached at Hari Nagar Depot red light, it was green light on his side, when he crossed the chowk and moved a little further then suddenly the petitioner came on motor cycle bearing No. DL4SBD-5721 Black Pulsar from Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar side and turned to left side of chowk and came on rail road and at once he turned his motorcycle to the right side, perhaps he has to go towards Janakpuri or Tilak Nagar and due to the red light, he had to wait for green light. Suddenly he came in front of him without waiting for green light and at once he stopped his motorcycle. He and his wife with great difficulty saved themselves from falling on the road and above said person was stopped and that person also stopped his motorcycle and threatened him by saying that why he had not been paying heed in driving motorcycle.

On this issue, the petitioner abused him and also threatened him that he will beat him. On this he told firstly you realize your mistake however he got down from the motorcycle and started beating him. His wife got down from the motorcycle and objected for his behaviour and 2-3 persons which came from the shops which were on the opposite side of the depot and in the garb of mediation caught him and hit him on head with his kara or some iron implement which he had in his hand at that time due to which blood started oozing out from right side of the head and thereafter he was taken to the DDU Hospital where treatment was started.

Respondent No. 2 further submits due to the intervention of the common relatives and friends the matter has been settled and he does not want to pursue the case further therefore if the present FIR is quashed he has no objection.

Ld. APP on the other hand submits, Section 308 is not compoundable in nature. Learned APP referred the decision 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 and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, & Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for reconsideration 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 used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs. 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).

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has recently held in case of Shiji @ Pappu Vs. Radhika and Anr. that the offence cannot be compounded after conviction, however the Courts have power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. after recording the reasons before conviction.

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 alternative she has further submitted if the court is inclined to quash the FIR then heavy costs be imposed and since the charge sheet has been filed however the charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are distant relatives therefore, if I do not allow the petition it will be the futile exercise of the trial court as the respondent No. 2 would not support the prosecution case ultimately the case may be failed.

In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, FIR No. 33/2011 at PS Hari Nagar and indemnity proceedings are quashed.

I found force in the submissions of the Ld. APP therefore I impose costs of Rs. 25,000/-to be paid in favour of the School and Home for Mentally Retarded Children, Sector-I, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi within two weeks from today. The deposition Slip shall be placed on record.

Crl. M.C. No. 2574/2011 is allowed.

Dasti.