Priya Gour
Published on: 2nd August, 2022 at 19:02 IST
In a display of stringent attitude towards malicious complaints, the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR for rape, filed by a women under wrongful advice, after a compromise was reached between the parties involved. However, the Court made it conditional on the term that required the woman to perform social service for two months at a blind school.
The Court was not happy with the woman’s conduct and the process being initiated. However, it took cognizance of the fact that the complainant had four dependents.
The Case:
The complainant had filed an FIR alleging that the petitioner, after offering her a cold drink, raped her when she remained unconscious.
However, as per a compromise between the two parties, it was established that the petitioner never established physical relations with the complainant. She was in agony due to a monetary dispute and hence she filed a complaint after being misguided. This made her request for withdrawal of her FIR.
The Single Judge Jasmeet Singh observed that, “…the conduct of respondent No. 2 is very unfair and is a total abuse and misuse of the process of law. On a query, the respondent respondent No. 2 states that she has been undergoing mental depression, as a result of which under misguided and wrong advice she has registered the FIR.”
The complaint and the compromise were poles apart, as per the court. Justice Jasmeet Singh noted, “However, I cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent No. 2 is staying with her family and has 4 children.”
Thus, the Court quashed the FIR registered under Sec. 328 and 376 of IPC, and directed the complainant to work at All India Confederation of the Blinds for a period of 3 hours, 5 days a week for a period of 2 months.
Also the complainant was ordered to plant 50 trees in Rohini Zone where, “Each tree shall have a nursery life of 3 years and the petitioners will look after their respective allotted trees for 5 years and status photograph shall be updated every six months.”
After giving such directions, the Court dismissed the FIR filed by the complainant.