Court quashes FIR after victim's compromise but imposes costs on petitioner, highlighting concerns over women's safety.
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against Prashant Kumar Jha, who was accused of harassment under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code. This decision comes after a compromise was reached between the petitioner and the victim, with the court making stern observations regarding the safety of women and the high-handedness exhibited by the petitioner.
The case stemmed from an incident on October 22, 2017, when the petitioner allegedly entered the car of the victim without her consent while she was travelling with her sister. The victim had raised an alarm, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The entire event was captured on CCTV, which served as critical evidence in the case.
During the proceedings, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the state expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR, provided a deterrent order was issued to prevent similar acts of lawlessness. The victim, identified as respondent no. 2, also indicated her unwillingness to continue with the prosecution, citing personal circumstances and repeated court visits as significant burdens.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the case, acknowledged the victim's predicament and decided against further victimizing her by compelling continued court appearances. The judgment emphasized that while the prosecution was curtailed, it was due to negative factors impacting the victim rather than any positive factors favoring the petitioner.
The court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the victim within a week. Failure to comply would result in the continuation of trial court proceedings, with the victim being allowed to testify via videoconferencing from her residence.
The judgment underscores the court's serious concerns regarding women's safety, even during broad daylight and in private spaces like personal vehicles. It sends a strong message against the disregard for law and the personal security of women.
Bottom Line:
Petition for quashing FIR for offense under Section 354D IPC - FIR quashed in view of compromise between the victim and the petitioner, but with stern observations on the high-handedness of the petitioner and serious concerns over women's safety.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, Section 354D
Prashant Kumar Jha v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849579
