Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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

Similar News