Abid Ali and Others vs State and Others

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl. M.A. No. 12220/2011 (exemption)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.164/2010 dated 05.10.2010 case u/s 420/468/471/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Welcome, New Delhi.

Further submits that respondent No.2 has amicably settled the all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR with the petitioners pursuant to the compromise dated 18.04.2011 and received the amount of `25.00 lacs from petitioners. Therefore, he does not wish to pursue present case any further.

Respondent No.2 present in person with his learned counsel Mr. Yogesh Chhabra, Advocate, who has duly identified him as respondent No.2.

On instructions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to pursue present case against the petitioners.

Further respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State strongly opposed the petition and submits that in light of decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian 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 and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, & 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 outcome of the larger Bench of the Apex Court, present 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 State machinery has been used.

I find force in the submission of learned APP, however, keeping in view the decision of Division Bench of Bombay 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 per Section 320 Cr. P.C. even after discussing Gian Singh (supra).

I have also taken similar view in a number of cases as the view already taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court that till above referred three decisions, 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.

In the circumstances, in view of above, FIR No.164/2010 u/s 420/468/471/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Welcome, New Delhi and proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed.

Further, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State. Since the government machinery has been used and precious time of the court has been consumed. Therefore, for substantial justice, costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.

Petitioners have paid a sum of `25.00 lacs to the respondent No.2, as per settlement dated 18.04.2011. Both are doing business in Thailand.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions submits that petitioners are intending to donate some amount for the welfare purposes.

This Court place on record the appreciation on this gesture advanced by petitioners. Therefore, I direct the petitioners shall pay a sum of `1.00 lac each.

Further direct that total sum of `2.00 lacs shall be deposited in favour of Principal/Headmaster, Government Lady Noyee School for Deaf and Dumb, Behind Firozshah Stadium, Delhi Gate, Delhi within two weeks from today and proof thereof shall be placed on the record by petitioners.

The amount as donated by the petitioner shall be kept in FDR. The interest accrued thereon shall be utilised for the well being of needy children of the school.

Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3440/2011 is allowed and disposed of in above terms.