Teka Singh @ Titu and ors Vs. State and anr

Teka Singh @ Titu and ors vs State and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 18, 2012

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/924634

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/924634
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

Teka Singh @ Titu and ors

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. .....to the larger bench, which were earlier decided in the case of 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 vs, state and ors. (2008) 16 scc 1 and has observed that section 320 cr. p.c. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the court and the other offences as non-compoundable vide section 320(7) of the code..7. he submits that keeping in view the judgment in the case mentioned above, the instant case may be adjourned sine die till the disposal by the larger bench. he further submits that if this court is still inclined to quash the fir, heavy costs be imposed..8. the division bench of mumbai high court in nari motiram crl.m.c.no.189/2012 page 2 of 4 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)..9. 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..10. 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, 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.....

Full Judgment

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.189/2012 % Judgment delivered on:18th January, 2012 TEKA SINGH @ TITU and ORS. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Avinash Lakhanpal, Adv. versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP with SI Bansi Lal, PS Roop Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 705/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. + Crl.M.C. 189/2012.

1. Notice issued..

2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court..

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.180/2011 dated 22.11.2011, a case under Sections 323/324/354/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS Roop Nagar against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2. Crl.M.C.No.189/2012 Page 1 of 4.

4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR due to the intervention of the local people and common friends. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 and the petitioners are from the same family, and therefore, just to stop enmity he has settled the matter with the petitioners..

5. Respondent no.2 is present in person who does not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and states that if the present FIR is quashed, he has no objection..

6. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the offence under Section 324 is not compoundable and submits that the Division Bench of Honble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. dated 23rd November, 2010 in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010 has referred the issues to the larger Bench, which were earlier decided in the case of 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 Vs, State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 and has observed that Section 320 Cr. P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7) of the Code..

7. He submits that keeping in view the judgment in the case mentioned above, the instant case may be adjourned sine die till the disposal by the Larger Bench. He further submits that if this court is still inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs be imposed..

8. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Crl.M.C.No.189/2012 Page 2 of 4 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)..

9. 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..

10. 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, 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..

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the petitioners except petitioner No.5 are having dairy and they are in the business of Crl.M.C.No.189/2012 Page 3 of 4 selling milk, therefore, they shall supply milk for 15 days to the Children and destitute women at Nirmal Chhaya, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi..

12. Accordingly all the petitioners No.1 to 4 are directed to supply 25 litre milk each at Nirmal Chhaya. The milk shall be distributed daily to all the inmates of all homes situated there..

13. The superintendent, Nirmal Chhaya is further directed to ensure the purity of milk on daily basis..

14. In view of above discussion, FIR No.180/2011 registered at PS Roop Nagar against the petitioners and proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed..

15. Criminal M.C.No.189/2012 is allowed and disposed of in above terms..

16. Order dasti. SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 18, 2012 'raj' Crl.M.C.No.189/2012 Page 4 of 4

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Teka Singh @ Titu and ors vs State and anr Same Subject Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition