Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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