Criminal Justice System Not Tool For Settling Personal Scores: Delhi High Court Deprecates Practice Of Lodging FIRs With Inflated Allegations

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 323, 341, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan stated, “The existence of such cross-cases, both arising out of the same neighbourhood discord, further demonstrates that the criminal law machinery was invoked with more passion than prudence. This Court finds it necessary to reiterate that the criminal justice system cannot be used as a tool for settling personal scores. Lodging FIRs with inflated allegations, particularly invoking serious sections without adequate basis, not only undermines the purpose of criminal law but leads to prolonged hostility, avoidable litigation, and wastage of judicial time. Such practice, unfortunately not uncommon, is strongly deprecated. Parties must be conscious that initiation of criminal proceedings carries serious consequences and must not be undertaken lightly or on the spur of anger or ill-advice. Parties are expected to exercise greater responsibility before initiating criminal proceedings of this nature.”

Advocate Yogesh Kumar represented the Petitioner, while APP Raj Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that when the second Respondent/victim was going to the market with her aunt, the parties had an altercation and the petitioners inappropriately touched the complainant and inflicted injuries upon her as well as her aunt. It was pointed out that the victim was not a minor at the time of the alleged incident and the ossification test of the victim held that she was 18 years old. The Chargesheet came to be filed. The petition before the High Court was filed on the ground that the parties settled their disputes by way of Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Understanding out of their free will without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

The Petitioners stated that due to prior animosity and a misunderstanding between the parties, they had also filed a cross FIR, only as a counterblast to the present FIR. They further stated that the quashing petition on the basis of settlement, with respect to the said cross FIR, has also been filed and the same was pending consideration.

Reasoning

Noting that the parties had undertaken that they would not indulge in such activities in the future, the Bench stated, “The parties are bound to the said undertaking.” The Bench further explained that offences under Sections 323, 341 and 509 of the IPC are compoundable, whereas offences under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO are non-compoundable.

The Bench noted that the victim was a major at the time of the incident, and the chargesheet also revealed that the victim’s ossification test was conducted, in which her age was held as 18 years. “Hence, prima facie the applicability of the POCSO Act is not attracted”, it added.

It was noticed that there existed animosity between the parties, which escalated into an altercation on the date of the incident. It was further noted that the FIR was lodged with allegations that the complainant herself admitted were exaggerated and made under ill-advice, but the petitioners also filed a counter-FIR, which they candidly conceded was likewise an exaggerated reaction and a counterblast.

Considering the nature of allegations, the age of the victim, the admitted exaggerations in the FIR and the bleak chances of securing a conviction in such circumstances, the Bench held that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to sheer abuse of the process of Court, especially when the case has been pending since the year 2016 and the charges had yet not been framed.

Thus, allowing the petition and exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court quashed the FIR and all the consequential proceedings.

Cause Title: Santosh Yadav v. The State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:10740)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Yogesh Kumar, Petitioners-in-person

Respondent: APP Raj Kumar, SI Monil Kumar, SI Lalchand

Click here to read/download Order