Public interest cases cannot be quashed by settlement alone: Delhi HC

Justice Prateek Jalan recused himself, citing his role in administrative action linked to disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers.

Cases involving a public element cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, Delhi High Court judge Prateek Jalan said on Thursday, even as he recused himself from hearing a quashing and anticipatory bail plea filed by a 51-year-old advocate accused of repeatedly raping and assaulting a 27-year-old woman lawyer and attempting to influence her through judicial officers.

The plea involved allegations against an advocate and claims of influence over judges, with one district judge already suspended after a vigilance inquiry. (Representational Image)

Justice Jalan said the matter involved a “public element” as it had led to disciplinary proceedings against two judicial officers and the suspension of one of them by the Delhi High Court. He transferred the case to another bench, stating that he was involved in the administrative decisions taken against the judicial officers.

“There is a public element involved. Quashing is allowed in cases where there is no public element. In this, 2 judicial officers are under disciplinary proceedings, and one of them has also been suspended. I’ll have to transfer. I was involved in the actions taken on the administrative side,” Justice Jalan said.

The observations came after counsel for the accused advocate, Abhimanyu Bhandari, submitted that his client and the complainant had amicably settled the dispute and entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on November 29, in which the woman stated she had no subsisting grievance.

Earlier, in a full court meeting on August 29, the high court suspended district judge Sanjeev Kumar Singh and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him and another judge, Anil Kumar, based on the woman’s complaint. Records of the August 28 meeting, seen by HT, showed the action followed allegations of grave judicial misconduct raised by the complainant before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and later the registrar general, prompting a vigilance inquiry.

On November 7, justice Amit Mahajan cancelled the advocate’s anticipatory bail and ordered an administrative inquiry against two district court judges, noting a blatant disregard for the integrity of the criminal justice system. However, on December 15, a trial court dismissed the advocate’s second anticipatory bail plea, citing contradictory conduct by the complainant.

The court noted that while the complainant sought time on November 26 to file a protest petition, she signed the MoU on November 29 and later informed the magistrate on December 13 that no protest petition would be filed.