Madhu Panchal and anr Vs. State and anr

Madhu Panchal and anr vs State and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 18, 2012

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/924633

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/924633
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 18, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[A. H. Joshi, J.] Indian Penal Code, - Sections 409, 468, 120B, 405 -- Applicants are three in number. The applicant No. 2 was a Mayor. Advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. The accused have allotted the work to those chosen contracto...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madhu Panchal and anr

Respondent

State and anr

Excerpt

[a. h. joshi, j.] indian penal code, - sections 409, 468, 120b, 405 -- applicants are three in number. the applicant no. 2 was a mayor. advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. the accused have allotted the work to those chosen contractors, adverse and hostile to the interest of the corporation. the municipal corporation jalgaon took up this scheme. the implementing authority was the municipal corporation jalgaon. criminal breach of trust. .....nagar. he submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he does not want to pursue the matter further. he has no objection if the present fir is quashed.7. learned app for state submits that the offence committed under section 120b indian penal code, 1860 is non-compoundable in nature.8. learned app referred the decision of hon'ble supreme court in 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 crl. m.c. 191/2012 page 2 of 4 time of the court has been consumed.9. 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).10. 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.11. further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the fir, heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioners as in the process, government machinery has been consumed and the precious time of the court has been mis-used.12. i find force in the submissions made.....

Full Judgment

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 191/2012 % Judgment delivered on:18th January, 2012 MADHU PANCHAL and ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. K.B.B. Singh, Adv. versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 712/2012(Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 191/2012 1 Notice issued.

2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State/respondent No..

3. Respondent No.

2. is personally present in the court today. CRL. M.C. 191/2012 Page 1 of 4 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.

267. dated 21.11.2010, a case under Sections 420/120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at P.S. Karawal Nagar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and respondent No.

2. does not want to pursue the case further.

6. Respondent No.

2. is present in the court today and he has been duly identified by IO/SI Ashwani Ambaria,P.S. Karawal Nagar. He submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he does not want to pursue the matter further. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

7. Learned APP for State submits that the offence committed under Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 is non-compoundable in nature.

8. Learned APP referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 CRL. M.C. 191/2012 Page 2 of 4 time of the Court has been consumed.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. Further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioners as in the process, Government Machinery has been consumed and the precious time of the court has been mis-used.

12. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State.

13. I, accordingly direct petitioner No.

1. to pay a costs of Rs.15,000/- and petitioner No.

2. to pay a costs of Rs.25,000/- in favour of Nursery Primary School for Mentally Retarded Children, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, within a period of 02 weeks from today. Proof of the payment of costs shall be placed on record.

14. The principal/Head Master of the above mentioned School is directed to keep the above mentioned costs of Rs.40,000/- in FDR initially for a period of 02 years with any Nationalized bank and thereafter, get the FDR renewed periodically. The interest accrued CRL. M.C. 191/2012 Page 3 of 4 thereon shall be utilized for the well being of the needy children of the school.

15. Accordingly, in view of above discussion and in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 267/2010 registered at P.S. Karawal Nagar, North-East District, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

16. Criminal M.C. 191/2012 is disposed of.

17. Dasti. SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 18, 2012 j CRL. M.C. 191/2012 Page 4 of 4

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Madhu Panchal and anr vs State and anr Same Subject Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition