NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC has quashed a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act after the complainant and her mother expressed their decision to move on from the incident.
The Court directed the accused to perform one month of community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital and deposit Rs 50,000 with the “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.”
Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order in a case involving allegations of harassment and exploitation of a minor school-going girl.
The Court stated that although it was initially not inclined to quash the FIR in a “perfunctory manner,” it changed its view after a “detailed and careful interaction” with the complainant and her mother. During the hearing, both made it clear that they had “consciously chosen to move on from the incident.”
“They expressed that the Complainant is currently exploring matrimonial prospects, and that the pendency of a criminal case may result as a serious impediment to her future opportunities and personal relationships. Her mother specifically submitted that ongoing criminal proceedings of this nature are likely to create social stigma and could undermine the family’s efforts to secure a suitable match for the Complainant,” the Court recorded in order dated May 27.
The FIR had been registered under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354C (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 384 (extortion), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It also included Section 12 of the Pocso Act, which deals with sexual harassment of a child.
The parties had entered into a Settlement Deed, according to which the complainant had voluntarily resolved her disputes with the accused. She also gave her no-objection to quashing the FIR. The Court noted that she had “neither received any monetary compensation from the accused, nor intended to claim any.”
Ordinarily, the Court said, such allegations, particularly those involving the sexual harassment of a minor, “would not merit quashing.” However, it stressed that the law also recognises the victim’s “right to privacy, dignity, and closure.”
The case involved disturbing allegations that the accused had harassed a minor girl by threatening to leak her private photos in exchange for money. The Court stated that such actions, “if true,” would show “a gross misuse of digital platforms and an alarming disregard for consent and personal dignity.” While allowing the quashing of the FIR, the Court made it clear that the accused will be “bound by the terms of the settlement” as well as his “undertaking furnished before the Court.”