Rajesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 present in person, accepts notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.388/2009 dated 14.12.2009 a case under Section 2011:DHC:4949 452/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi.

4. Further submitted that compromise has been taken place with the intervention of the common friends and relatives and members of the locality on 20.07.2011 and the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners.

5. Respondent No.2 is present in person, who has been duly identified by ASI Pradeep Kumar, police station Vijay Vihar. Respondent No.2 submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to pursue the case further against the petitioners, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.

6. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State submits that in the instant case the FIR has been registered under Section 452 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is ‘non-compoundable’.

7. Learned APP referred the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & 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 & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 & Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the abovesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not. Alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the FIR is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.

8. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 has permitted for compounding of the offences of ‘noncompoundable’ 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 the present case also, since I have taken the same view earlier, in the interest of justice, keeping the settlement dated 20.07.2011 into view, FIR No.388/2009 under Section 452/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the petitioners at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed.

11. I find force in the submissions of learned APP for the State, therefore, while quashing the FIR, I impose a costs of ì 10,000/- upon petitioner No.1, who is agriculturist; and a costs of ì 50,000/- upon petitioner No.3, who is a cable operator. I defer in imposing any costs upon petitioner Nos.[2] & 4 who are Constable and Head Constables in Central Para Military Forces. I also defer in imposing any costs upon petitioner No.5, who is a National player of Rugby & recently had won Bronze Medal.

12. The aforesaid total costs of ì 60,000/- shall be deposited in favour of the ‘Welfare Fund for Children & Destitute Women’ Nirmal Chaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi within a week from today and proof thereof shall be placed on the record.