Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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