District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

FIR Quashed in Stalking Case Accused Suffering from Psychosis N.O.S.: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking decision, the High Court of Delhi, led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, has quashed FIR No. 654/2021 dated 30.11.2021 under Sections 354D IPC, 1860, and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. This judgment sets a significant precedent, with implications for cases involving mental health issues and settlement between parties.

The case revolved around the petitioner, Amanpreet Singh Bedi, who sought the quashing of the FIR on the grounds of a settlement between the parties. The petitioner was facing charges under serious sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act.

Crucially, the court considered medical evidence indicating that Amanpreet Singh Bedi was suffering from Psychosis N.O.S. (Not Otherwise Specified) with Borderline Intellectual ability. This condition raised questions about his ability to control his actions at the time of the incident.

The court also took into account the settlement reached between the parties and the consent of the victim’s father to quash the FIR. The medical board’s report further supported the petitioner’s condition and the need for regular medical care and supervision.

In his observation, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated, “Though the status report filed on record by the State discloses that the CCTV footage has captured the petitioner along with the victim, however, in view of the medical records placed on file, it appears that the petitioner was unaware of his actions.”

Consequently, the High Court quashed FIR No. 654/2021 and the proceedings stemming from it, emphasizing the petitioner’s mental health condition and the settlement between the parties.

This landmark decision underscores the importance of considering mental health in criminal cases and the potential for amicable settlements to resolve disputes. Advocates Dr. Sarbijit Sharma, Ms. Rudrakshi Gautam, and Mr. Yashi Chaturvedi represented the petitioner, while Mr. Shoaib Haider, along with SI Shalini from PS Welcome, and Mr. Sharad Pandey, Advocate, represented the State and Respondent No. 2.

Date of Decision: October 19, 2023

AMANPREET SINGH BEDI  vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Latest Legal News