$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + [CASE NUMBER] % Judgment delivered on:13th March, 2012 RAHUL PANDIT & ORS Petitioners Through : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate versus STATE & ANR Respondents Through : Mr. [ENTITY], APP with SI Vinay Kumar, I.O. PS Bhajanpura Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. 3128/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
+ [CASE NUMBER] 1. Notice.
2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State/respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court.
3. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash FIR No. 19/2012 dated 22.1.2012 registered at PS Bhajan Pura under Sections 308/341/323/506/34 [ACT] against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that the complainant and the petitioners are living in the same locality and with the intervention of common friends and the community members, respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR vide compromise deed dated 22.01.2012. Therefore, respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue the case any further against the petitioners. He prays that in the circumstances, the instant petition may be allowed.
6. Respondent No.2 who is personally present in the court, is identified as respondent No.2 by SI Vinay Kumar, the I.O. of the case. It is submitted that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the case any further and has no objection if the FIR mentioned above is quashed.
7. Learned APP on the other hand submits that due to the scuffle which took place between the petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 and some other persons received injuries and cross-cases were registered vide FIR mentioned above and vide FIR No. 18/2012 dated 22.1.2012 under [SECTION] [ACT] wherein respondent No.2, Sh. [ENTITY] is the complainant and case was registered against five accused persons. He further submits that the offence punishable under [SECTION] is not compoundable
8. Learned APP referred the decision of Honble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. 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 v. State & 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 matter is decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court, instant petition may be adjourned sine-die. Alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the FIR is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.
9. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in [PRECEDENT]. in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 03.02.2011 has permitted for compounding of the offences of non- compoundable category as per [SECTION] [ACT] even after discussing [PRECEDENT] (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. In addition, the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] in [CASE NUMBER] 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] [ACT] 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.
12 In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the parties are living in the same locality, therefore, they entered into compromise deed dated 22.1.2012 and keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2 who is no more interested in pursuing the case any further, the FIR mentioned above i.e. FIR No. 19/2012 dated 22.1.2012 registered at PS Bhajan Pura, is hereby quashed.
13 I find force in the submission of learned APP on the part of cost. I, therefore, impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- each on petitioner Nos. 3, 6 and 8; and a cost of Rs. 5000/- on Petitioner No.2 to be paid within two weeks from today in favour of Indigent and disabled Lawyers Account of Bar counsel of Delhi. Proof of the same be also placed on record.
14. However, I refrain from imposing cost on petitioner No.1 who is working as a Conductor in the DTC, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 who are serving on meager salaries and on petitioner No.7 who has just completed his BBA and is unemployed.
15. Accordingly, [CASE NUMBER] is allowed in above terms.
16. [ENTITY].
[ENTITY], J MARCH 13, 2012 'raj'/jg