Chhote Lai v. State

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.404/2011 under Section 308/341/34 IPC registered at P.S. Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts leading to the registration of the case FIR No.404/2011 P.S. Sangam Vihar, New Delhi are that heated arguments took place between petitioner No.3/Ajay Prakash and petitioner No.l/Chhote Lai with regard to cleanliness of bathroom, which led to a quarrel and petitioner No.2/Nitin (complainant), who is the cousin brother of petitioner No.3, lodged the complaint, which culminated into registration of the said FIR under Section 308/341/34 IPC.

3. It is stated that petitioner No.l brought three boys with him holding dandas and they started beating petitioner Nos.l and 2 and when they ran out of the said house to save themselves, two out of three, surrounded petitioner No.2/complainant and beat him with bricks and stones due to which he sustained injuries on head and back. 2012:DHC:8103

4. Subsequently, a cross case was also registered against petitioner No.3 herein, on the basis of the statement of brother of petitioner No.l, namely, Rajesh vide FIR No.412/2011 under Section 324/341/34 IPC, P.S. Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement out of their own sweet will, without any pressure and force from any corner and petitioner No.2/complainant does not wish to pursue the complaint against the petitioner No.l any further and want that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed.

6. Offence punishable under Section 308 IPC is a noncompoundable offence. In Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Ann in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010, 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 vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the aforesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not. The matter is yet to be decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court. However, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. has permitted for compounding of the offences of 'non-compoundable' category as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. even after discussing Gian Singh's case.

7. As per the decision of Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. V. Radhika & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011, 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."

8. On behalf of the State learned APP submits that currently the trend emerging is to initiate criminal proceedings to pressurize the other party to settle the dispute in order to avoid arrest and/or prosecution and since now both the cross cases i.e. FIR Nos.404/2011 and 412/2011 have been settled between the parties, some cost must be imposed for wasting the precious time of the Court.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to contribute the amount, considered reasonable by the Court as cost.

10. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.l, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court.

11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.404/2011 under Section 308/341/34 IPC, P.S. Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

12. Petitioner No.l/Chhote Lai is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- with 'Delhi Legal Services Authority' within four weeks. A receipt of the same be filed in the Registry.

13. Dasti. MAY 04, 2012 aka •FSrielHlorRAiCT