Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently held that "the continuation of criminal proceedings will be a futile exercise if the chances of conviction are bleak." The court made the following observations while dealing with the case of an Afghan national who was charged with rape and forgery following a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by a U.S. woman.

The bench, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, quashed the FIR against the Afghan national as both parties arrived at an amicable settlement and said, "Even non-compoundable offences could be quashed if the court concludes that a conviction cannot be recorded and that continuing with the trial would be futile."

The Afghan national was charged under sections 376/419/420/385/387/506/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 14 of the Foreigners Act and 66-D & 66-E of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

Observing that the petitioner had been in jail for approximately 7 to 8 years, the court upheld the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others v. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705, and noted, "It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can, in our opinion, be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility."

Further, the court also noted an affidavit submitted by the complainant, highlighting that both parties were foreign nationals and had amicably settled their disputes.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan, appearing for the petitioner (Afghan national), submitted before the bench that the parties had entered into an oral settlement and amicably resolved all their disputes. Advocate Rajiv Mohan further brought to the court's attention that the petitioner had undergone a considerable period of incarceration by remaining in judicial custody for more than 7 years.

Consequently, Advocate Manoj Taneja, appearing on behalf of the complainant, supported the contentions raised by the petitioner and added that the court should quash the FIR by exercising its inherent powers.

Conversely, APP Raghuvinder Verma, appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner being a foreign national overstayed in India after his visa expired. APP Raghuvinder Verma further submitted that the petitioner has a habit of using fake and false identities. The APP said that he had previously impersonated and deceived the complainant with the false promise to marry her, thereby committing the offence of rape.

In light of the contentions made, the court rendered the present criminal revision infructuous, noting that the petitioner is a foreign national, and further ordered that he be deported to his country in accordance with the law.

Case Title: HAMEEDULLAH AKBAR@ FAHEEM MODH ZAI V STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR