Akhilesh Nagayach v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR no.0484/2021 registered under Section 342 IPC and under Section 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 registered at PS Mehrauli (South), Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on the statement of respondent No.3/Complainant who is the father of the victim. In his statement he had alleged that his minor child, aged 11 years at the time of incident, was sexually assaulted. The petitioner was sent to judicial custody on the same day of lodging of FIR i.e. 21.08.2021. on 23.08.2021 Respondent No.2/victim was produced before the Learned MM for recording of his statement under Signing section 164 Cr.PC wherein the victim had not made any allegation against the petitioner. It is submitted that this court vide order dated 17.11.2021 granted bail to the Petitioner. it is also submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present FIR on the basis of a misunderstanding.

3. The respondent no.2 and 3 have also filed the reply in which it has been stated precisely that the allegations made by the minor child were out of fear and misconception. In the reply it is also submitted that Respondent No.2 being the natural guardian of the victim and Respondent No.3/victim are readily giving their no objection to the quashing of the present FIR and all proceedings emanating there from.

4. I have considered the submissions and perused the records. The statement of victim has been recorded wherein the occurrence of the alleged incident is denied. The victim has stated that he himself touched the petitioner accidently and no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner.

5. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Supreme Court as well as this Court that the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable. However, such power is to be used sparingly with caution and circumspection. It is imperative that while exercising such inherent power, the High Court must examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and whether continuation of criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.

6. This court has, in numerous cases of similar nature, quashed the criminal proceedings in the cases of similar nature. Reliance can be placed on the orders of this court dated 17.01.2019 in Ramesh vs The State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 6245/2018; order dated 02.12.2021 in Signing Rohit Kumar vs. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr., CRL.M.C. 3096/2021; order dated 17.08.2018 in Dinesh Kumar vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., CRL.M.C. 4161/2018; judgement dated 10.09.2018 in Sandeep & Anr. vs. State & Ors.., CRL.M.C. 3277/2018.

7. In the present case it is an admitted matter of record that the allegations made by the minor child were an outcome of fear and misconception and the same can be reflected from the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case I consider that no purpose will be served in continuing with the trial.

8. In view of the above, FIR no.0484/2021 registered under Section 342 IPC and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 at PS Mehrauli (South), Delhi and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

9. The present petition along with all the pending applications stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JANUARY 25, 2023 rb.. Signing