Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2450
DELHI HIGH COURT
Suresh Kait, J.
Bhagwan Dass & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Resopndent
Crl. M.C. No. 774 of 2012
Decided On : 02-03-2012
For the Respondents: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with ASI Charan Dass, PS Mandir Marg, Mr. K.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in per#31;son.
The non-compoundable nature of offenses and the consideration of amicable settlement and financial position in quashing the FIR.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code - Sections 308/323/34 - The court discussed the non-compoundable nature of the offenses and referred to various decisions including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors., Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr., and Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. The court ultimately quashed the FIR considering the amicable settlement between the parties and the financial position of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, citing an amicable settlement between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the FIR considering the amicable settlement and the financial position of the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed in light of the amicable settlement and the non-compoundable nature of the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the non-compoundable nature of the offenses and referred to various decisions to ultimately quash the FIR based on the amicable settlement and the financial position of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, refraining from imposing costs on the petitioners due to their financial position.
The legal document discusses the issue of quashing an FIR in the context of criminal law, specifically regarding non-compoundable offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the nature of the offenses, the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties, and the financial circumstances of the petitioners.
The court emphasized that generally, offenses that are classified as non-compoundable are not subject to settlement and cannot be quashed solely on the basis of an amicable resolution. However, in this case, the court took a pragmatic approach, considering the amicable settlement and the fact that the petitioners belonged to a lower socio-economic background with limited financial means.
The court ultimately decided to quash the FIR and all proceedings related to it, emphasizing the importance of justice and the interests of the parties involved. It also refrained from imposing costs on the petitioners, recognizing their financial hardship.
This decision underscores that while non-compoundable offenses typically cannot be settled out of court, courts may exercise their inherent powers to quash FIRs in cases where there is an amicable settlement, especially when the parties are from vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds, and continuing prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose.
Suresh Kait, J.
Crl.M.A.No.2724/2012(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. No.774/2012
1. Issue notice.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Mr.K.K. Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No. 344/2005 dated 01.09.2005 under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, New Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.2 as well as the petitioners are known to each other since long and on some petty issue some altercation took place between them due to which respondent No.2 received injuries. In the MLC of respondent No.2, the doctor has opined the injury to be „simple in nature caused with blunt weapon?.
6. It is further submitted that since they are living in the same locality and they belong from the lower strata of the society, with the intervention of the locality people, they have amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR. He further submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant is no more interested to pursue the case further, therefore, the instant petition may be allowed.
7. Respondent No.2/complainant is personally present in the Court with his counsel Mr. K.K. Sharma.
8. ASI Charan Dass, IO of the case, is present in the Court and identified the respondent No.2.
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the case further, and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
10. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that in the present case the petitioners inflicted injuries on the person of respondent No.2 which were though simple in nature but were caused by a blunt object. Therefore, a case under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 had been registered against the petitioners, which is non-compoundable in nature.
11. Learned APP has referred the decisions of the 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 above said three decisions were decided correctly or not. Therefore, she has prayed that till the matter is decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court, instant 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.
12. 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).
13. 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. 14. In addition, the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr in Crl.Appeal No.2064/2011 decided on 14.11.2011 that the cases of non-compoundable nature can be compounded, certainly not after the conviction observing as under:-
“…... That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception”; will be
