Mr.Prason Kumar with Mr.Pankaj Agarwal, Advs. v. STATE & ANR .....

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR ---' No.l95/2011 dated 03.05.2011, a case under Section 287/338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Narela against the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent No.2, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR,and the petitioner has offered to give him~ 2 lacs to compensate him and complying with the aforesaid direction,.. '..__.~:, a sum of~ 75,000/- vide Demand Draft dated 2nd August, 2011 bearing No.004349 drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of 2011:DHC:10885 ~·· respondent No.2 the same has been handed over today to the ~· respondent No.2 in Court. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the balance amount of ~ 1.25 lacs shall be paid within one week from today by way of a Demand Draft. -~--·--J,

2. The ld. APP for the State submits that as per the order in a case of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, recently by Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred the case to the larger Bench to decide, whether, for the non-compoundable offences, the Court have power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to compound the offences or not. Therefore, prays that the present petition be not allowed.

3. The respondent No.2, is personally present in Court along ~~· with his wife-Smt. Darshna Yadav. The respondent No.2 is identified by the 1.0. ASI Sajjan Singh. He submits that the respondent no.2 is a very poor man and since 03.05.2011, i.e. date of incident, he has not been able to do any work and, therefore, it is very difficult for him to survive life, when, he has to maintain two children of seven and eight years of age respectively. His wife is a house-maker and earning nothing.

4. Though, I find force in the contention of ld. APP for the State, recently, I adjourned the matter sine die awaiting the,-·~~ decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court on the issue as - ··,:; r-..! _3 to whether the High Courts have the power to compound the offence or not. However, u/s 482 Cr. P. C. this Court has the power to use its discretion in the peculiar circumstances as the present case is falling in the same category.

5. This is a peculiar case and the respondent No.2 who is a victim is in a very difficult situation. He has lost 03 fingers and that are of right hand. If, I take the same decision as taken recently, there will be total injustice to the victim. The scheme of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is to punish the culprit.

6. If this Court does not quash this FIR, then the respondent No.2, who is getting financial help from the petitioner, would suffer injustice and hardship as he is already a victim of the ~-~' same.

7. Therefore, in the present circumstances, I deem it appropriate to quash the aforesaid FIR No.195/2011 dated 03.05.2011, registered at Police Station Narela and the proceedings emanating thereto.

8. Ld. APP submits that the Government machinery has been used, charge-sheet in the case has already been filed and the charge is not yet framed. Therefore, while quashing the aforesaid FIR cost is to be imposed on the petitioner. \~ I find force in the contention of the ld. APP and I impose a 9. cost of ~15,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.2. The proof of payment of balance amount of ~1.25 lacs and cost of~ 15,000/shall be placed on the record.

10. Criminal M.C. No.2813/2011 stands disposed of in above terms.

AUGUST 26, 2011 vk ·~ SURESH KAIT, J ~·:~ --- I,- ~ ~ ·:~ ~ i '-~:....-•-•, ~