Hitender Tyagi @ Sintu v. State & Ors

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

¶1Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 578/2003, a case under Sections 365/325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 P.S. Timarpur, Delhi was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶2It is further submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 27.06.2011 for a total sum of Rs.2.75 lacs and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not want to pursue the case further qua the aforementioned FIR.

¶3Respondent Nos 2 and 3 are personally present in the court today. They are duly identified by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate, who on their instructions submit that they do not want to pursue the case further and they have no objection fit the present FIR is quashed.

¶4Learned APP strongly opposes the quashing of FIR as the same pertains to Section 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is non-compoundable in nature, the FIR should not be quashed.

¶5Learned APP referred the case 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 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 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.

¶6The 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 the case of Gian Singh (supra).

¶7Therefore, in my opinion 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.

¶8Learned APP for State submits that the Government Machinery has been mis-used and the precious time of the court has been consumed, heavy costs shall be imposed on the petitioners.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioners has, on instructions from the petitioners, come forward to donate an amount of Rs.50,000/- each for welfare of the needy children.

¶10I appreciate this gesture of petitioners.

¶11Keeping the Compromise Deed into view and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I quash the aforesaid FIR No. 578/2003 under Sections 365/325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Timarpur, Delhi against the petitioners and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12I further direct, payment of Rs.1 lacs be deposited in favour of "Nursery Primary School for Mentally Retarded, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi" within a period of two weeks. The proof of payment be placed on record.

¶13The Principal of the School is directed to keep the amount in FDR initially for a period of 03 years and interest accrued thereupon shall be utilized for the wellbeing of the needy children of the School.

¶14Criminal M.C. 3391/2011 is allowed and disposed of.

¶15Dasti.

SURESH KAIT,J NOVEMBER 18,2011/j/RS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3391/2011 % Judgment delivered on:18th November, 2011 HITENDE TYAGI @ SINTU &ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Saurabh Tyagi, Adv. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Rajdipa Behura, APP. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Adv. for R2/R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?