Full Judgment
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 382/2012 % Judgment delivered on: 1st February, 2012 INDER RAJ @ INDER RAM and ORS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. versus STATE and ORS ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy counsel for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP. Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv. for R2 along with R2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 1324/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 382/2012 1 Notice issued.
2. Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy counsel for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned counsel for State accepts notice on behalf of Crl.M.C. 382/2012 Page 1 of 4 State/respondent No.1.
3. Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.
2. 4 With the consent of both the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties have jointly stated that vide FIR No.
596. dated 15.08.2007, a case under Sections 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Yamuna Vihar/Gokul Puri, Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
6. Further submit that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and the parties are no more interested to pursue the matter further.
7. Respondent No.2 Pandit Rukam Singh/complainant is personally present in the court today. He has been duly identified by his counsel.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits that respondent No.
2. is not interested to pursue the aforesaid FIR and he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. It is further submitted he received simple injuries and no stitches were applied on the injury and he was discharged on the same day from the hospital.
9. Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the matter is pending for recording Prosecution Evidence before the learned trial court.
10. Further submits that offences committed under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable in nature.
11. Learned APP referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.M.C. 382/2012 Page 2 of 4 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and 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 and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to 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 used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.
12. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan and 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).
13. 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.
14. In addition, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011 that the cases of non-compoundable nature can be compounded, Crl.M.C. 382/2012 Page 3 of 4 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. 15 Though I find force in the submissions made by the learned APP for State but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are working as labourers and belong to poor strata of society, I refrain imposing costs upon them.
16. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 596/2007 registered at P.S. Yamuna Vihar/Gokal Puri, Delhi and all the emanating proceedings emanating therefrom.
17. Criminal M.C. 382/2012 is allowed.
18. Dasti. SURESH KAIT, J FEBRUARY 01, 2012 j Crl.M.C. 382/2012 Page 4 of 4