$-32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2988/2011 SANJAY PURl Petitioner Through : Mr.Pradeep Chandel, Adv. versus STATE & ANR Respondent Through : Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for State Mr.Munish Kochhar, Adv for R-2 with respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 06.09.2011 CrI.M.A.No. 10541/2011 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 2988/2011 1. Mr.Pradeep Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.33/2007 dated 20.01.2007 under Section 324/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered, against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2, at police station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. CRL.M.C.298812011 Page lof 6 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 Further submits that since the respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the issues qua the present FIR against the petitioner, therefore, he does not want to pursue present FIR any further. Respondent No.2/Ravi Arora is personally present in the Court with his learned counsel, Mr.Munish Kochhar, Advocate who has duly identified him. In addition, he has also produced his original voter identity card bearing No.NLN088979 issued by Election Commission of India, photocopy thereof has already been placed on the record. Original seen and returned to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 submits that he has left with no issues qua the aforesaid petitioner in respect of present case FIR, therefore, he does not wish to pursue present case any further. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State has strongly opposed the quashing of the FIR and submits that present case does not fall in the category, as per the guideline laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors Vs. CRLM.C.2988/2011 Page 2of6 Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604. Therefore, if any misuse of process is done, then definitely the FIR should be quashed, however, present case does not fall in that category. Learned APP for State has also relied upon the judgment in case of Sushil Suri Vs. CBI & Anr in Criminal Appeal No.110912011 decided on 06.05.2011 and State of A. P. Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Anr Criminal Appeal No.125212010 decided on 15.07.2010, wherein, the cases which were of 'non-compoundable' nature were not quashed. Further submits that in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Cr1.) No.898912010, 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 and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and 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. Therefore, till the CRL.M.C. 298812011 Page 3of6 outcome of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, the present FIR may not be quashed. In case of Sushi! Sun (supra) the funds of public exchequer were misappropriated and the cheating was committed against the public and society; whereas in the present case, the issue is between the two parties and no government institution is involved, who has been affected by the misdeed or the offence committed by the petitioner. In the present situation, I am of the view that until, the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, reverses the settled law, till then, the three Judgments of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, hold the field. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has taken the same view in the case of Low Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Cr!. W.P. No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011. Alternatively, learned APP for State submits that in the present case Government machinery has been used and the precious time of the Courts has also been consumed, therefore, if this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR, CRL.M.C.298812011 Page 4of6 then petitioner be burdened with heavy costs, which may be utilized for the purpose of the under-privileged persons. Mr.Pradeep Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions submits that petitioner has no difficulty to contribute the amount for the welfare of the under-privileged persons in the society. I place on record my appreciation to the gesture of the petitioner that he has come forward to contribute some amount for the welfare purposes. 13 Therefore, in the interest of justice, since the matter has already settled between the parties, and the fact that no purpose would be served, if the case would continue in the Trial Court, as the complainant has come forward in support of the petitioner not to pursue his case further. If, I do not allow this petition, then ultimately, the complainant may turn hostile or not support the case of the prosecution due to settlement. It would be sheer wastage of precious public time. 14. Keeping the above discussion into view and to avoid CRL.M.C. 298812011 Page 5of6 p futile exercise, in the interest of justice, case FIR No.33/2007 under Section 324/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered against the petitioner at police station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 15. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to deposit a costs of 21acs in favour of Andh Maha Vidyalaya, Panchkuain Road, New Delhi H. 0. Near Mohan Hospital, New Delhi - 110001, b within two weeks, for the welfare of the physically challenged children. The proof thereof shall be placed on record. Criminal M.C.No.2988/2011 is allowed in above terms. Copy of order dasti under signature of the Court Master. SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 9l1k CflLM.C. 298812011 Page 6of6