Facts of the Case:

In May 2022, an FIR was registered against the Petitioner for offences under Section 354(A) (sexual harassment), 354(D) (stalking), and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Complainant alleged that during her employment, the accused employer, who is the Petitioner in this case, persistently sexually harassed, stalked, and humiliated her through obscene remarks, unwelcome physical contact, and social media stalking, and later threatened her to withdraw the Complaint against him. Consequently, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 354A, 354D, 509, 506, and 354 IPC.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and related proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, stating that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. He submitted that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Contention of the Respondents:

Respondent no.2 (the complainant), confirmed before the Court that the matter had been settled with the Petitioner voluntarily without any force, fear or coercion, and that she has no objection to the FIR against the Petitioner being quashed. Moreover, the Additional Public Prosecutor of the State also raised no objection, in view of the amicable resolution and subsequent quashing of the FIR.

Court’s Observations:

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed when parties have amicably settled the matter. As reproduced by the Court from the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh:

 “… the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

The Court held that since the parties have a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the FIR. The Court accordingly allowed the petition of the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

Court’s Order:

The Court ordered the FIR and all consequential proceedings to be quashed. Additionally, the Court imposed a condition that the Petitioner shall perform community service every Sunday for the next six months. The Court further directed the Petitioner to appear before the Medical Superintendent of a designated government hospital in Delhi on the coming Sunday to be assigned community service work.

Written by Adv. Prerna Murarka