Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Abhay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 7061 of 2022 & Crl.M.A. 27290 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2023
POCSO Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 354A/354D & Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 - The court discussed the settlement between the parties and the peculiar nature of the case, considering the forgiveness of the petitioner by the complainant. The court referred to the judgments in Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala and Vishnu v. State of Kerala & Anr. to support its decision. The court exercised its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in the interest of complete justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an adhoc lecturer, was accused of making lewd remarks and inappropriate advances towards a student. The parties later entered into a settlement, with the complainant forgiving the petitioner and expressing no objection to quashing the FIR and related proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement out of their own free will, without any fear, force, or coercion. It considered the forgiveness of the petitioner by the complainant and the peculiar nature of the case, leading to the decision to quash the proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misconduct of the petitioner towards the student, the subsequent settlement between the parties, and the exercise of the court's inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in the interest of complete justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. It considered the forgiveness of the petitioner by the complainant and the peculiar nature of the case as decisive factors.
Final Decision: FIR No. 017/18, Dated 31.01.2018, under Sections 354A/354D & Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS Maurice Nagar, New Delhi, and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.C. 7061/2022
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of case FIR No. 017/18, Dated 31.01.2018, under Sections 354A/354D & Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS Maurice Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the victim/Respondent no. 2 who was enrolled in B.A. (Programme) at Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi, and was in her 2nd Semester when she was being taught by the Petitioner (Adhoc Lecturer). The complainant alleged that the Petitioner used to stare and wink at her during the lectures. Upon finding Respondent No.2 alone in college, the petitioner used to approach her for conversation. It is further alleged that on 22.01.2018 the Petitioner met the victim at the canteen and on seeing her, the Petitioner made lewd remarks for Respondent No. 2 and touched her with wrong intentions. Further, it is alleged that on 25.01.2018 the Petitioner during the lecture in front of the whole class, he again made lewd remarks and hearing them she got nervous. Respondent No. 2 further alleged that the Petitioner from his phone No. 9818813621 used to message her on WhatsApp at her Phone No. 7027865459 and asked her to meet alone and to accompany him for tea/coffee. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 alleged that when she used to leave from college, Petitioner used to invite her to meet him to which she used to refuse, and Petitioner in return threatened to fail her in internal exams. Furthermore, it has been alleged that the Petitioner stalked Respondent no. 2 with evil intentions to the exit gate of the college or sometimes in the canteen after the Petitioner's lecture used to get over.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2018 and has remained in custody for around 50 days. The charge-sheet was filed under Section 354A/354D IPC and Section 8/10/12 of the POCSO Act on 12.03.2018.
4. It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 signed a Settlement Deed dated 17.12.2022 in the presence of the father of the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner has tendered unconditional apologies to the Respondent No. 2 for any of his acts or omissions which were unintentional and inadvertent in nature and the Respondent No. 2 has agreed to forgive the Petitioner on her own free will without any threat, fear, force, or coercion and has condoned all his acts and omissions and as such Respondent No. 2 does not want to continue any further litigation and is willing to lead her normal peaceful life.
5. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 now has no grievance of any kind against the Petitioner. The parties have resolved their disputes amicably and asettlement has been effected between the Petitioner and the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 herein on the following terms and conditions:
"1. That the parties have settled all issues and disputes between them (who are witness to this Deed of Settlement and undertake to abide by it) and the Second Party tenders unconditional/unqualified apologies to the First Party for any/all of his acts or omissions causing discomfort to the First Party, and the First Party is forgiving the Second Party on her own free will without any threat, force and coercion and condones all his acts and omissions and as such the First Party doesn't want to litigate any further and willing to lead her a normal peaceful life and pursue her academic/professional career.
2. The First Party further affirms that she has forgiven the Second Party keeping in view the fact that the Second Party is a man of letters being Political Science Ph.D. and has otherwise never harbored any ill will against any of his students including the First Party
3. The Second Party affirms that he has clean antecedents except the accusation in the present FIR and his conduct was never hostile in nature to anyone in past.
4. The Parties to this Deed affirms that contents of this Se
The court can exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash proceedings in the interest of complete justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court, considering the for....
The court has the discretion to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement, especially in cases where there is a pre-existing familial or personal relationship, to prevent the abuse of the cour....
The court may exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings when the offense is predominantly private and a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations and resolution....
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on settlements, as they affect public interest and the dignity of victims.
The court can exercise inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence, the gravity of the case, and the amicable settleme....
The court may quash FIRs in cases involving serious offences if the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the likelihood of conviction is minimal.
The court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, if it serves the ends of justice and prevents abuse of the court's process.
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement, considering the private nature of the dispute and the amicable settlement reached by the parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
