Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 354A, 354D, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, which was filed by a woman alleging sexual harassment by her employer. The quashing was allowed following a compromise and settlement between the complainant and the accused. However, the Court made the quashing conditional upon the accused performing community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital (LNJP), Delhi, every Sunday for six months. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that when continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, the High Court is within its jurisdiction to quash the matter to secure the ends of justice.
Facts
The complainant, who was employed under the accused at the time of the alleged incident, lodged an FIR dated 19 May 2022 at PS Naraina. In her complaint, she alleged that the accused persistently sexually harassed her by making obscene remarks, making unwelcome physical contact, and stalking her on social media platforms. Furthermore, she stated that after she objected to the accused’s conduct, he allegedly threatened her to withdraw the complaint.
Based on her complaint, the police registered an FIR under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), and 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). Later, a charge sheet was filed invoking Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 509, and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
Issues
- Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 354A, 354D, 509, and other related provisions of IPC should be quashed on account of settlement between the parties?
- Whether such a settlement in a sexual harassment case merits judicial approval under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court?
- Whether any conditions should be imposed while granting the relief of quashing to secure the ends of justice?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that he and the complainant had amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated 8 July 2025. This settlement was not forced or influenced by any external pressure, coercion, or fear. He argued that since the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case and had explicitly stated her no-objection to the quashing, the continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose and would be a misuse of judicial time and process.
He further contended that criminal proceedings arising out of private or personal disputes, especially those where parties have reached a voluntary settlement, should be put to rest in the interest of peace and justice. The petitioner relied on the established jurisprudence that permits the High Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings if it finds that such continuation would amount to an abuse of process.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant, appearing virtually and represented by counsel, supported the petitioner’s submissions and confirmed that the matter was settled without coercion or undue influence. She expressed her intention not to pursue the FIR and stated that she had no objection to its quashing.
The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State also did not oppose the petition. He submitted that considering the nature of settlement and the complainant’s consent, the State had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and related proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined the issue in light of Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which is analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC, and enables the Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it was held that in cases where the dispute is personal in nature and both parties have settled, continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose. The Court must examine whether allowing the prosecution to continue would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice, especially when the offence is not of a heinous or serious nature affecting public interest.
Applying this principle, the Court held that the offence complained of, while serious, had been amicably resolved, and that the complainant herself did not wish to prosecute the matter. The Court found that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is closed with a condition that the accused undertakes community service.
Precedent Analysis
The principal precedent relied upon was:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 – The Supreme Court held that High Courts have the inherent power to quash proceedings even in cases involving non-compoundable offences if the parties have settled and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process or be against the interest of justice. The Delhi High Court cited the following passage with approval:
“The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings… and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.”
This case guided the Court’s reasoning on balancing settlement with public interest and judicial fairness.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that though the offences alleged were of a sensitive nature, the complainant had unequivocally expressed her wish not to pursue the case. The compromise appeared genuine and was not obtained through coercion. Both parties had appeared before the Court via video conferencing and were identified by their respective counsel and investigating officers.
Given the mutual settlement, the absence of public interest concerns in the facts of the case, and the complainant’s no-objection, the Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
However, the Court sought to balance justice with accountability. Therefore, it imposed a condition that the petitioner must perform community service at LNJP Hospital every Sunday for the next six months. The Medical Superintendent of the hospital was directed to assign appropriate work and file a compliance report.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 252/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising from it. The relief was made conditional upon the petitioner completing weekly community service for six months at LNJP Hospital.
Implications
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach to handling sensitive criminal allegations where parties reach amicable resolution. While not trivializing the allegations, the Court demonstrated pragmatism by requiring meaningful community engagement from the accused. The decision reinforces the principle that the High Court can, in appropriate circumstances, quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
It also sets a precedent for resolving interpersonal disputes—particularly employer-employee issues—outside the strict penal framework, when victims do not wish to pursue prosecution, without losing sight of public interest.
FAQs
Q1. Can an FIR in a sexual harassment case be quashed after settlement between the parties?
Yes, if the Court is satisfied that the settlement is genuine and continuation of proceedings would not serve public interest, the FIR may be quashed in appropriate circumstances.
Q2. Does the Court impose any conditions while quashing FIRs involving serious allegations?
Yes. Courts often impose conditions such as community service or charitable contributions to ensure accountability, even if the dispute is settled.
Q3. What is the significance of the Gian Singh ruling in such cases?
The Gian Singh judgment allows High Courts to quash non-compoundable offences if it secures the ends of justice, especially when the dispute is personal and settled.
