Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner (accused) under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 376, 420, 385, 387, 506, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 14 of Foreigners Act and 66D & 66E of IT Act 2000 along with all consequential judicial proceedings on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement. Vikas Mahajan, J., quashed the FIR to serve the ends of justice and to provide relief to the complainant and to save her from the agony of criminal cases.
In the present case, the petitioner stands accused of multiple criminal offences, including impersonation, fraud, and sexual exploitation. The case began with a complaint filed by a US citizen who alleged that in 2016, the accused, using the false identity, deceived her into a relationship on the pretense of marriage. The petitioner induced the complainant into physical relations and further exploited her financially by obtaining money through fraudulent means. The accused also falsely promised to register their marriage in Dubai and later threatened to harm the complainant, including throwing acid on her face and using indecent photographs to blackmail her for more money. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the petitioner had been overstaying his visa since 2014 and had fraudulently procured an Indian Election ID and PAN card using fabricated documents, including a falsified adoption deed.
Two co-accused persons were found to have assisted in the creation of this forged adoption deed. Charges were brought against the petitioner under various sections of IPC, including rape, cheating, extortion, forgery and under the Foreigners Act and the Information Technology Act. The investigation resulted in multiple chargesheets, and while one of the co-accused died during the proceedings, the trials against the accused and others continue. The State filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order separating the charges, resulting in a stay on the trial.
Counsel for the accused submitted that the parties have reached an oral settlement, resolving all disputes amicably, with the complainant agreeing to cooperate in quashing the FIR. The complainant has already received the allegedly defrauded amount and no longer wishes to pursue the case. The accused has spent over seven years in judicial custody, and the trial remains at an initial stage, with numerous witnesses yet to be examined. The accused cited precedents where courts have quashed FIRs based on settlements and emphasizes that further proceedings would be unnecessary, as the accused has already served the maximum sentence for several charges.
Counsel for the complainant concurred with the petitioner’s submissions, stating that the complainant has voluntarily agreed to settle the matter, seeking closure of all cases arising from the FIR. He highlighted that the complainant is an educated US resident who wishes to move on with her life, having no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Counsel further pointed out the accused’s prolonged incarceration and referenced similar cases where FIRs were quashed due to amicable settlements.
The Court observed that the disputes between the complainant and the accused had been amicably resolved. The complainant, currently residing in the USA, voluntarily cooperated with the accused to quash the FIR registered on her complaint. She appeared via video conferencing and confirmed that she no longer wished to pursue the case, seeking complete closure of all proceedings related to FIR. The Court was satisfied that her decision was made freely, without any coercion.
The accused had been in custody for over seven years since his arrest in 2017, far longer than the potential sentence for most of the charges, except for Sections 376 and 467 of the IPC. Additionally, the trial had not proceeded due to a stay order from 2019, and no witnesses had been examined. The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the State, including the judiciary, to ensure a speedy trial, and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration without trial violated his constitutional right under Article 21.
The prosecution had cited 55 witnesses, making the trial a protracted process. The complainant’s unavailability, given her residence in the USA, compounded the difficulty of continuing the proceedings. The Court concluded that continuing the trial would be futile, as the complainant no longer supported the case, and the chances of conviction were slim.
The Court also noted that the co-accused played a minor role in the alleged forgery and was not involved in the creation of the forged document. Given these factors, the Court found no grounds to continue the proceedings against him either.
Thus, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the judicial process and quashed the FIR against both the petitioner and the co-accused. The Court directed the Jail Superintendent to forthwith hand over the accused to the FRRO, Delhi for being deported to his country in accordance with law, if he is not required in any other case.
[Hameedullah Akbar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7121, decided on 09-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajiv Mohan and Mr. Swapnil Krishna, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for State with SI Sita Ram Meena, PS. NR-I, Crime Branch. Mr. Manoj Taneja, Adv. for R2/complainant with R-2 (through VC from USA)
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
