$-25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2822/2011 MUNIDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mahesh Verma, Adv. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents CORAM: Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State R-2 in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER 29.08.2011 Cri.M.A.10058/2011 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Cri.M.C.2822/2011 , I 1. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIP No.11/2011 under Section 420/468/467/471 Indian Penal Code. 1860 was registered at PS Subzi Mandi against the petitioner. 2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 Charanjit Singh, on whose complaint the aforesaid FIR has been filed, has compromised the matter qua the said FIR against the petitioner. As per the compromise Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified dated 28.04.2011 between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act bearing CC No.131/1/10 has already been withdrawn. 3. Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court, who is identified by 10 51 Satya Prakash, PS Subzi Mandi. He submits that the petitioner is his real brother and the matter has already been settled with the intervention of family, friends and relatives, therefore, he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 4. Learned APP for State has raised strong objection that vide order dated 23.11.2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh" Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. dated 23rd November, 2010 in SLP (Crl.) No.8989!2010 has referred three earlier decisions viz, B.S. )oshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of lnestigation and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs, State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench. 5. Further submits that the offences under Section 468/4 71 Indian Penal Code are 'non-compoundable', therefore, till the decision of the Supreme Court of the larger Bench comes, the matter may be adjourned sine-die as in one matter has been adjourned sine-die and the proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed by this Court. 6. On 26.08.2011, in Criminal M.C. No.1879/2011 titled as 'Aiisha Sharma & Anr Vs. State & Anr' similar issue was before this Court and the learned counsel for petitioner in that case. has referred the judgment of the Division Bench of Mumba! High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl. W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of Indian Penal Code which were of 'non- compoundable' category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and the FIR No.S0/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed. This Court has also taken the similar view and the FIR No.77/2011 registered at police station Saket was quashed. 7. Keeping the settlement into view and the fact that respondent is no more interested in pursuing the matter and as this Court has already taken view in case of Alisha Sharma (supra), in the interest of justice I quash the FIR No.11/2011 ---·------------------ under Section 420/468/467/4 71 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Subzi Mandi against the petitioner and the proceedings emanating thereto. 8. Though the Government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed, keeping in view the age of the petitioner as he is a senior citizen and he has no earnings, in the interest of justice I defer imposing cost of him. 9. Cri.M.C.2822/2011- is allowed in the above terms. AUGUST 29, 2011 vld SURESH KAIT, J