Dismissed

Alexander Francis v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2024CRL.M.C./1501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR for rape and POCSO. Relying on settled Supreme Court law, the Court held that serious offences like rape cannot be quashed even upon settlement, and found no grounds to entertain the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings was dismissed along with the pending application.

Alexander Francis Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1501/2023 ALEXANDER FRANCIS .....Petitioner Through: Mr.N.K.Verma and Ms.Dimple Sirohi, Advocates with petitioner in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Sachin PS Baba Haridas Nagar and SI Rashmi PS Malviya Nagar. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate (through VC) for respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 22.07.2024

¶7

With the assistance of ld. APP, this Court has examined the case file.

¶8

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 386/2021 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC and 6 POCSO at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶9

As per the allegation in the present FIR, the petitioner, being the brother-in-law of the complainant had committer rape upon her multiple times and even gave beatings to her, causing physical as well as mental trauma. The allegations are supported in the subsequent statements as well as the medical record.

¶10

It is noted that the present FIR is sought to be quashed merely on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:08:27

¶12

Learned APP for the State has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition and submits that offences are grave and serious in nature. Further, the complainant has supported her version in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the chargesheet has been filed and the charge has been framed. It has been informed that the trial is at the stage of defence evidence.

¶13

In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.2

¶14

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), has observed as under: “xxx

¶15

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such

¶16

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶17

2 (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:08:27

¶20

power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society…. xxx”

¶21

Considering the import of the aforenoted decision and the similar observations made by the Court in Shimbhu v. State of Haryana reported as (2014) 13 SCC 318 , as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, I find no ground to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed alongwith the pending application.

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶23

JULY 22, 2024/ rd

¶24

Alexander Francis v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alexander Francis v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansoor Alam @ Mansur Alam Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Kapur Vs State and Anr.

Mohd. Mehtab Chaudhary @ Sonu Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pawan Dixit and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Concerned SHO and Anr.

Riya Arpita Dayal Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Nitish Kumar Soni Vs State