Som Dutt and Others vs State and Another

Suresh Kait, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, the respondent No. 2 has filed complaint case against the

petitioners and thereafter the same was converted into FIR No. 94 dated 11.03.2009 under Sections 420/467/506/468/471/469/379 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Burari.

Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2, due to the intervention of neighbourers and relatives has amicably settled all the issues

qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue the case further in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the parties, due to the

intervention of neighbourers and relatives.

Learned APP for State submits that all the sections in the present FIR are non-compoundable except Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned APP for State has referred the case 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, 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.

Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of Mumbai 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 u/s 452/324 of Indian Penal Code which were of ''non-compoundable'' category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and

the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed.

Therefore, I feel that unless and until, the decisions which have been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the

precedent and have binding effect.

Learned APP further submits that alternatively, if the court is inclined to quash the present FIR, then heavy costs may be imposed upon the

petitioners as in the process, the Government Machinery has been pressed and the precious time of the court has been consumed.

Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. He has been duly identified by IO of the case, Inspector V.K. Tyagi, DIG/North

District.

Respondent No.2 submits that he has amicably settled all the issues with the petitioners qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue

the case further. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits on instructions that petitioners are interested to donate Rs.20,000/- each towards some welfare

schemes.

Accordingly, I direct the petitioners to deposit Rs.20,000/- each in favour of Delhi Police Welfare fund within 02 weeks from today. The proof

of the same shall be placed on record.

In the interest of justice and keeping in view the statement of respondent No. 2, I quash the FIR No. 94/2009 registered at P.S. Burari and all

the proceedings emanating therefrom.

Criminal M.C. 4115/2011 is allowed.