Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Under JJ Act
The Delhi High Court, while refusing to quash an FIR registered for electrocution of a 7 years old minor child based on settlement between the parties, has observed that the psychological trauma of the child cannot be trivialized merely because electrocution device was a torch.
The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed, “…..counsel appearing for the petitioners also contended that the alleged electrocution had been done merely by a torch, and therefore, the case is not very serious in nature. However, this Court is unable to accept such a submission, particularly in view of the specific and consistent statements made by the child victim, including his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein he clearly narrated the sequence of events, including being undressed, beaten, electrocuted, and threatened by the accused persons. The victim was merely 7 years old at the time of the alleged incident, and the psychological trauma and fear inflicted upon a child of such tender age cannot be trivialized or disregarded merely on the ground that the instrument used for electrocution was a torch.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Kamal Kant Jha, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar.
Facts of the Case
As per the Complainant (the child’s mother), the child had been beaten and electrocuted by the neighbour; but no external injuries were found on medical examination. She alleged that the accused and his wife had caught hold of her minor son, beat him, and subjected him to electric shocks. The minor son, aged 7 years – who was occasionally mischievous and would sometimes ring doorbells and run, was returning home from her vegetable shop when the accused stopped him, beat him, undressed him, and allegedly electrocuted him.
During the course of investigation, the statement of the child victim was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein he reiterated the allegations made against the accused persons and further stated that they had threatened to kill him if he disclosed the incident at home. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the IPC and Section 75of the JJ Act.
Counsel for the Petitioners stated that both parties have amicably settled the present matter vide Memorandum of Undertaking entered between them, and their statements to the said effect have been recorded by the Joint Registrar (Judicial)
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the allegations in the present case are serious in nature and the victim herein was only 7 years of age at the time of alleged incident, who was beaten and electrocuted by the accused persons and a case of such a nature cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Reasoning By Court
The Court agreed with the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor and observed, “Keeping in view the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that such acts, prima facie, not only impact the individual victim but also raise broader concerns relating to public interest, safety as well as the protection of children. Therefore, such offences cannot be treated as mere private disputes capable of being quashed solely on the basis of a subsequent settlement between the parties. Considering the gravity of the alleged acts, quashing the FIR at this stage would set a dangerous precedent and defeat the administration of criminal justice”.
It further observed that the FIR has also been registered for offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, which pertains to cruelty to a child and that such crimes against children affect not only the individual victim but also the conscience of society at large.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Smt. Sureshtha & Anr. vs. State
Appearances:
Petitioner– Advocate Kamal Kant Jha, Advocate Avinash Singh, Advocate Manas Tiwari, Advocate Juhi Mishra
Respondent– Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar