Bhim Singh and ors Vs. State

Bhim Singh and ors vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 23, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/924783

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/924783
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Dec 23, 2011
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

Bhim Singh and ors

Respondent

State

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. .....and 12 submits that they have amicably settled the matter with petitioners no.1. to 10 and they are no more interested in pursuing the case further. they have no objection if the instant fir is quashed.7. learned app for state submits that except section 323 indian penal code, 1860, all the other sections pertaining to the instant matter are 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 outcome of the larger bench of the apex court, present petition may be adjourned sine-die. alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the fir is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the crl.m.c. 4337/2011 page 2 of 3 petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious 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 the court is inclined to quash the fir, heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioners for mis-using the government machinery and consuming the precious time of the court.12. though, i find.....

Full Judgment

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4337/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 23rd December, 2011 BHIM SINGH and ORS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. S.K. Sethi, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1 Notice issued.

2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State accepts notice on behalf of state.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant petition has been filed jointly by accused persons and complainant to quash the FIR No. 994/2000 dated 31.10.2000 registered at P.S. Dabri District South West under Sections 147/148/149/452/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against petitioners Nos.

1. to 10 on the complaint of petitioners No.11 and.

12.

4. Learned counsels further submit that all the petitioners belong Crl.M.C. 4337/2011 Page 1 of 3 hail from the same locality and the matter has been compromised amicably between the parties due to the intervention of family friends and relatives.

5. All the petitioners are present in person and have been duly identified by Mr. S.K. Sethi, Advocate. In addition thereto, for the identification of petitioners Nos.11 and 12 who were also the complainants, they have placed on record their respective affidavits and photographs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction of petitioners No.

11. and 12 submits that they have amicably settled the matter with petitioners No.

1. to 10 and they are no more interested in pursuing the case further. They have no objection if the instant FIR is quashed.

7. Learned APP for State submits that except Section 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860, all the other sections pertaining to the instant matter are 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 outcome of the larger Bench of the Apex Court, present petition may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the FIR is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the Crl.M.C. 4337/2011 Page 2 of 3 petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious 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 the court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs shall be imposed upon the petitioners for mis-using the Government Machinery and consuming the precious time of the Court.

12. Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State, but keeping in view the poor financial condition of the petitioners, I refrain imposing costs upon them.

13. In the interest of justice and in view of the statements made by petitioners No.

11. and 12, I quash the FIR No. 994/2000, police station Dabri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

14. Criminal M.C. 4337/2011 is allowed and disposed of.

15. Dasti. SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 23, 2011 j Crl.M.C. 4337/2011 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Bhim Singh and ors vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition