Justice Mendiratta noted that since the matter had been amicably settled, keeping the case pending would serve no useful purpose.
NEW DELHI: Today (10th June): The Delhi High Court quashed a case against a 61-year-old man who had been accused of outraging the modesty of a woman. This decision came after the accused reached a settlement with the complainant and was subsequently directed to plant 30 trees as part of the settlement.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta presided over the petition moved by the accused to quash the FIR registered under IPC Section 354, which pertains to assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.
Justice Mendiratta noted that since the matter had been amicably settled, keeping the case pending would serve no useful purpose.
The judge remarked,
“The continuation of the case would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.”
Consequently, the court ordered,
“FIR under sections 354 IPC registered at police station Vasant Kunj, South, and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.”
READ ALSO: Man Accused of Assaulting Kanhaiya Kumar Granted Bail by Court
Instead of imposing monetary costs on the petitioner, the court directed him to plant 30 saplings of trees, each up to three feet in height, in the local area of P.S. Vasant Kunj, South. This task is to be coordinated with the competent authority.
The court emphasized,
“Instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioner, he is directed to plant 30 saplings of trees, which are up to three feet in height in the local part or in the area of P.S. Vasant Kunj, South after getting in touch with the competent authority…”
The upkeep of these saplings will be the responsibility of the concerned authorities. In the event of non-compliance, the petitioner is required to pay a fine of Rs 30,000 to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
In November 2016 when the woman accused the petitioner of outraging her modesty. The petitioner later informed the court that the FIR was filed due to some differences, which have now been amicably resolved.
The court noted that while heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot be quashed despite a settlement, cases involving civil disputes or minor incidents where the victim has been compensated stand on a different footing.
“After interacting with the parties, the court said both of them wanted to put an end to the proceedings and the settlement would promote harmony between them and permit them to move forward in life,” the court stated. The court also highlighted that the chances of conviction were bleak given the amicable settlement.
