Continuation Of Criminal Proceedings Will Be Exercise In Futility: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Upon Amicable Settlement

It stated that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility as even the complainant did not support the prosecution's case.

A single judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan was considering the plea of the petitioner/accused to quash the FIR against him. He was charged under Sections 376/420/385/387/506/419/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC read as well as Section 14 of Foreigners Act and 66D, 66E of IT Act.

The complainant (respondent no. 2), who is a US citizen, alleged that the petitioner impersonated himself and developed a friendship with her. She alleged that on the basis of a false promise of marriage, the petitioner induced her to have physical relations with her. She claimed that the petitioner exploited their relations by fraudulently taking a huge sum of approximately 90,000 US Dollars from her on various occasions.

During the investigation, it was found that the petitioner illegally procured Election ID and PAN Card and that he fabricated an adoption deed. An FIR was also filed against a co-accused for attesting as a witness to the fake adoption deed.

However, the complainant filed an affidavit stating that the disputes between the parties had been amicably compromised. She stated before the Court through video conferencing that she wanted closure of all the cases and had no objection to allowing the present petition.

The High Court noted that it is empowered to exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings and stated that Section 320 CrPC (compounding of offences) does not limit or affect its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

It referred to the Supreme Court case of Shiji alias Pappu and others v. Radhika & Anr. (2011), where it was observed that even a non-compoundable offence under Section 320 CrPC can be quashed by the high court if it considers that the there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire trial would be an exercise in futility

In the present case, the Court noted that the complainant is an educated and mature person and that is satisfied that she voluntarily have her consent to quashing the FIR.

The Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody since 2017 and remarked that he has been incarcerated for a long time at “pre-conviction stage when there is a presumption of innocence in his favour.” It observed that he has been in jail for a period more than which he could be sentenced for various offences charged, except for offences under Sections 376 IPC and 467 IPC.

It noted that the trial has not proceeded since the State got a stay on proceedings in 2019 and that no witnesses have been examined to date.

The Court stated, “The law is well settled that it is the obligation of the State to ensure a speedy trial and State includes judiciary as well. Inordinately long delay may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice.” It remarked that the right to a speedy trial applies to a foreign citizen as well.

Here, the Court observed that the trial would take a long time as there are around 55 witnesses. It opined that as the complainant herself is not supporting the prosecutions' case, the chances of conviction are bleak and thus the continuation of proceedings would be futile.

“Having regard to the fact that the complainant is not supporting the case of the prosecution, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, the chances of conviction are bleak. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility. Further, the complainant, who is a foreign national, wishes to give complete quietus to all cases which are pending before the Courts in Delhi arising from the present FIR to live her life in peace in the USA.”

Taking into account these circumstances, the Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner and remarked that the continuation of proceedings against him would be “oppressive and unwarranted.”

The Court also quashed the FIR against the other co-accused, even though he did not file the present petition. It observed that it can exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to do 'real and substantial justice'.

It noted that the role of co-accused was subservient to the role ascribed to the petitioner. Thus, if the proceedings are quashed against the petitioner, the continuation of proceedings against the co-accused would amount to injustice.

Case title: Hameedullah Akbar@ Faheem Modh Zai vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (CRL.M.C. 7020/2023 & CRL.M.A. 26189/2023