Facts of the Case:

The Delhi High Court dealt with a petition seeking the quashing of FIR registered on 3rd May 2019 at Bhajanpura Police Station. The FIR was filed by a woman against two men, her relatives, alleging offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 506, 509, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 354 deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Section 354A covers sexual harassment and the use of criminal force against a woman. Section 354B pertains to assault or use of criminal force with the intention of disrobing a woman. Section 506 relates to criminal intimidation, while Section 509 criminalizes acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section 34 provides for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. A chargesheet had been filed in the matter. The complainant stated that the dispute arose from a domestic conflict and that senior family members who had been involved had since passed away.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The accused, through their petition, sought quashing of the FIR. They undertook that they would refrain from engaging in any activities that could give rise to similar infractions in the future. Additionally, they committed to depositing Rs. 5000 each into the Delhi Police Welfare Fund and to undertake community service at Jama Masjid for four hours on four days a month, for two months. They emphasized that, given the settlement with the complainant and the remote chances of conviction, continuation of the proceedings would amount to misuse of the judicial process.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The complainant stated that she did not wish to pursue the case further. She explained that the issues arose from a domestic dispute and had been resolved, noting that the petitioners were her relatives and senior family members who had been central to the conflict were now deceased. She consented to the quashing of the FIR and agreed to the terms of the settlement between the parties.

Court’s Observations:

Justice Anish Dayal observed that the parties had voluntarily entered into a settlement and that the likelihood of conviction was “remote and bleak.” The Court noted, “There is no use continuing with proceedings of the present FIR as it would be a misuse of the process of the Court and an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer.” The Court emphasized the voluntary undertakings by the accused, including community service and contributions to the welfare fund, as a factor supporting the quashing. Justice Dayal recognized the domestic nature of the dispute and the resolution achieved between the parties and highlighted the importance of avoiding protracted litigation in cases where the likelihood of conviction is minimal.

Court’s Order:

Based on the settlement and undertakings, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 506, 509, and 34 IPC. The Court directed that the parties abide by the settlement terms, including the payment to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund and the prescribed community service. The Court disposed of the petition and marked pending applications as infructuous.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai