Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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