Delhi High CourtInder Raj @ Inder Ram & Ors vs State & Ors on 1 February, 2012Author:Suresh KaitBench:Suresh Kait$~22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    CRL.M.C. 382/2012

%              Judgment delivered on: 1st February, 2012


       INDER RAJ @ INDER RAM & ORS ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.

                     versus


       STATE & ORS                        ..... Respondent
                              Through : Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy
                              counsel for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned
                              APP.
                              Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv. for R2 along with
                              R2 in person.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT



SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)CRL. M.A. 1324/2012 (Exemption)
       Allowed subject to all just exceptions.CRL. M.C. 382/20121      Notice issued.2      Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy counsel for Ms. Rajdipa
Behura, learned counsel for State accepts notice on behalf ofCrl.M.C. 382/2012                                       Page 1 of 4State/respondent No.1.3      Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalfof respondent No. 24      With the consent of both the parties, the instant petition is taken
up for final disposal.5      Learned counsel for both the parties have jointly stated that vide
FIR No. 596 dated 15.08.2007, a case underSections 308/34Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Yamuna Vihar/Gokul Puri,
Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2.
6      Further submit that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have
amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and the parties are
no more interested to pursue the matter further.
7      Respondent No.2 Pandit Rukam Singh/complainant is personally
present in the court today. He has been duly identified by his counsel.
8      Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits
that respondent No. 2 is not interested to pursue the aforesaid FIR and
he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. It is further
submitted he received simple injuries and no stitches were applied on
the injury and he was discharged on the same day from the hospital.
9      Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been
filed, charges have been framed and the matter is pending for recording
Prosecution Evidence before the learned trial court.
10     Further submits that offences committed underSection 308Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable in nature.11     Learned APP referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court inCrl.M.C. 382/2012                                      Page 2 of 4Gian Singh v. 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 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 used and precious
time of the Court has been consumed.12     The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram
Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided
on 03.02.2011 has permitted for compounding of the offences of 'non-
compoundable' category as perSection 320Cr. P.C. even after
discussingGian Singh(supra).13     Therefore, I feel that unless and until, the decisions which have
beenreferred 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.14     In addition, the Supreme Court inShiji @ Pappu & Ors. v.
Radhika & Anrin Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011
that the cases of non-compoundable nature can be compounded,Crl.M.C. 382/2012                                      Page 3 of 4certainly 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 482Cr.P.C. 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.‟15     Though I find force in the submissions made by the learned APP
for State but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are working as
labourers and belong to poor strata of society, I refrain imposing costs
upon them.16     In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, I quash the
FIR No. 596/2007 registered at P.S. Yamuna Vihar/Gokal Puri, Delhi
and all the emanating proceedings emanating therefrom.
17     Criminal M.C. 382/2012 is allowed.18     Dasti.SURESH KAIT, J

FEBRUARY 01, 2012
jCrl.M.C. 382/2012                                         Page 4 of 4