Varun Kumar and Another vs State NCT of Delhi and Another

Suresh Kait, J.

CRL. M.A. 18664/2011 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL. M.C. 3965/2011

Vide FIR No. 67/2011, a case under Sections 308/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that he has amicably settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue the case further.

Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. He has been identified by his counsel, Mr. Aswani Vij, Advocate. On instructions, he submits that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

Learned APP for State submits that the case pertains to Section 308 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is non-compoundable.

Learned APP refers to the 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 above said 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.

Learned APP further submits that since the Government machinery has been mis-used and the precious time of the court has been consumed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners while quashing the FIR.

Though, I find force in the submission made by learned APP for State, but keeping in mind the poor financial condition of petitioners into view, I refrain imposing costs upon them.

I quash FIR No. 67/2011 registered at P.S. Geeta Colony, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

Criminal M.C. 3965/2011 stands allowed and disposed of.