Satbir Singh and Another vs Balraj Singh and Another

Suresh Kait, J.—Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 466 dated 22.06.2000, case u/s 380/411/448/34 Indian Penal

Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station - Patel Nagar against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 1.

Ld. Counsel further submits that respondent no. 1 has settled all issued qua the aforesaid FIR and he is no more interested to pursue the case

further and if the present FIR is quashed he has no objection.

Respondent no. 1 is personally present in the court and he has produced the original I-Card issued by Election Commission of India, photocopy

of the same is at Page 38 of the Paper Book. Original seen and returned to respondent no. 1.

Respondent no. 1 submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and no more interested to pursue the case. If the present FIR is

quashed, he has no objection.

Ld. APP on the other hand submits the Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable and has referred the decision of Hon''ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. 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 government machinery has been used and precious time of the court has been consumed.

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 per Section 320 Cr.P.C. even after discussing

Gian Singh (Supra).

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.

Keeping in view the Statement of respondent no. 1 that he is no more interested to pursue the case, in the interest of justice, I quash FIR no.

466/2000 of Police Station Patel Nagar and emanating proceedings thereto against the petitioners.

I find force in the submission of ld. APP that the government machinery has been pressed and precious time of the court has been consumed.

At this stage, ld. Counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the petitioner submits that petitioners are willing to donate some amount for

welfare purposes.

Accordingly, petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- in favour of middle school for deaf, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi within two

weeks from today. The proof of the same shall be placed on record.

The Principal / Head Master of the said school is further directed to keep this amount in FDR initially for a period of 1 year and get it renewed

periodically and interest accrued thereon shall be utilized for the well being of needy students.

Crl. M.C. 4119/2011 is allowed in view of the above terms.