Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Friday, May 30, 2025

It Is Now Becoming A Trend To Register FIRs Alleging Sexual Harassment Cases To Force A Party To Withdraw Complaint Or To Arm Twist A Party: Delhi HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Thu, Mar 11, 21, 20:51, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 1 - hits: 6334
Laishram Premila Devi v/s The State It is a national tragedy that we see that laws meant for protection of women are fast turning

It is remarkable, righteous, refreshing, rejuvenating and reasonable to learn that while ruling explicitly, elegantly, eloquently and effectively that time has come to initiate action against persons who file frivolous complaints under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC etc only for an ulterior purpose, the Delhi High Court has just recently on February 23, 2021 in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark decision titled Laishram Premila Devi & Ors. vs The State & Ors. in CRL. M.C. 533/2021 and CRL.M.C. 534/2021 has imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioners with a warning not to file false and frivolous cases. It is a national tragedy that we see that laws meant for protection of women are fast turning into weapons of stabbing men in the most cowardly, dastardly and gruesome manner. But our lawmakers care a damn for it! This alone explains why there is no provision in our laws whereby she is made to suffer in the same manner as the man if she dares to ever level false charges against men!

It is a matter of national shame, national disgrace and national humiliation that a man named Vishnu Tiwari had to suffer without committing any offence 20 years of incarceration in connection with a false rape case filed against him by a woman owing to an alleged land dispute in Lalitpur district in UP. He was acquitted just recently by the Allahabad High Court but only after spending 20 years in jail! Why is it that a woman who files a false rape case is not similarly made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for at least the same period which the man had to undergo? Why is she usually let off without even imposing any jail term or even fine or even reprimand! Why our lawmakers most shamelessly, senselessly and stupidly not do anything on this score?

To put it mildly: Why women has been given the unfettered licence to attack men whenever she likes to level most absurd charges against men as we see in this case and in Vishnu Tiwari case and so many other cases also and then yet escape away very lightly? This has to be checked immediately by imposing strict punishment on those who dare to malign men without any valid ground so that no women ever dare to take the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution for granted! Is women stupid, senseless, mad and lunatic that she does not understand anything when she levels most serious allegation against men of rape, against her own husband of dowry charges using Section Section 498A of IPC as most potent weapon where most of the cases are also found to be false and in many other cases?

It is high time and women also now must be held accountable for her misdeeds! She should not be let off lightly or after imposing just some fine as she is solely culpable for ruining man's life for no fault of his! As we all know that women these days demands equality in every field then why should she demand exemption here? No women of right senses will ever demand so and she should be seriously taken to task if she does something wrong intentionally against men!

To start with, the ball is set rolling by single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad of Delhi High Court who authored this leading judgment by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, CRL.M.C. 533/2021 has been filed for quashing FIR No.239/2017 dated 12.05.2017, registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North), New Delhi for offences under Sections 509, 506, 323, 341, 354, 354A and 34 IPC. The complainant/respondent No.2 in the said FIR has alleged that on 12.05.2017, when she was going to drop her children to school, the accused who reside in the neighbourhood beat her and outraged her modesty and also committed act of sexual harassment. The contents of FIR are not being repeated here.

As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, CRL.M.C. 534/2021 has been filed for quashing FIR No.238/2017 dated 12.05.2017, registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North), New Delhi for offences under Sections 509, 506, 323, 341, 354, 354A and 34 IPC.

While elaborating on the facts of the case, the Bench then points out in para 3 that:
The complainant in the said FIR is the accused in CRL.M.C. 533/2021. The allegation in this FIR is that the petitioners herein have committed offences punishable under Section 354 IPC i.e. assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The parties in all the FIRs are residents of 95/9, Kisangarh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi, and are neighbours.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that:
It is stated that with the intervention of some common friends, relatives and family members, the parties have settled their dispute and an oral settlement has been reached between the parties. It is stated that both the parties, the petitioners and respondents in CRL.M.C. 533/2021 and CRL.M.C. 534/2021, have realised their mistake and they had decided to compromise the matter.

As it turned out, the Bench then stated in para 5 that:
As per the said oral settlement, the parties have agreed that they will approach this Court for the quashing of the abovementioned FIRs. It is stated that they had agreed that they will maintain harmonious relations with each other. It is requested that the FIRs be quashed as the dispute has been amicably resolved.

To be sure, the Bench then also discloses in para 6 that:
The parties have also filed their respective affidavits affirming the fact that the matter has been settled amicably. It is also stated that the complainants in both the petitions do not have any objection if the instant FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Most significantly and most remarkably, what forms the cornerstone of this brilliant, brief, blunt and bold judgment is then stated superbly and suavely in para 7 wherein it is held explicitly, elegantly, eloquently and effectively that:
Unfortunately, it is now becoming a trend to register FIRs alleging offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC either to force a party from withdrawing a complaint instituted against them or to arm twist a party. Offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC are serious offences. Such allegations have the effect of tarnishing the image of the person against whom such allegations are made.

Allegations regarding these offences cannot be made at a drop of a hat. This practice is an abuse of the process of law. The instant case is a classic example as to how frivolous allegations of Section 354 and 354A have been levelled by the parties against each other. A small fight regarding parking has been escalated by levelling allegation of outraging modesty of women. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that the police force is very limited. Police personnel have to spend time in investigating frivolous cases.

They have to attend court proceedings, prepare Status Report etc. The result is that investigation in serious offences gets compromised and accused escape because of shoddy investigation. Time has come to initiate action against persons who file frivolous complaints under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC etc. only for ulterior purpose. Some of the petitioners in these instant petitions are students who should understand not to take courts and the police for granted and assume that anything and everything can be settled and they can get away by filing false cases.

Furthermore, the Bench then goes on to add in para 8 that, In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting with the present proceedings. Resultantly, the FIR No.238/2017 and FIR No.239/2017 dated 12.05.2017, under Sections 509, 506, 323, 341, 354, 354A and 34 IPC registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North), New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The parties shall remain bound by the mutual settlement and the undertaking given to the Court.

Finally, while disposing of the petition as stated in para 8, the Bench then holds in para 9 that, Since the Police has had to spend valuable time in investigating the offence and considerable time has been spent by the Court in the criminal proceedings initiated by the parties, this Court is inclined to impose cost on the petitioners with a warning not to file false and frivolous cases.

The petitioners in CRL.M.C. 533/2021 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within three weeks from today and the petitioners in CRL.M.C.534/2021 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within three weeks from today. Details of the Account are as under:

  • Account Name: DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund
  • Account Number: 15530100009730
  • Bank Name: UCO Bank
  • Branch: Sher Shah Road, New Delhi
  • IFSC Code: UCBA0001553

Copy of the receipts be also filed with the Registry to show compliance of the order.

While what the learned Judge – Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court has held is best suited in the present circumstances but it is high time and now penal law must be amended suitably. A woman under no circumstances should be allowed to get away lightly after levelling the most serious allegations which tarnishes the reputation and dignity of man to the hilt and in many cases he is made to suffer imprisonment in fake cases as we saw most recently in Vishnu Tiwari case where he had to suffer imprisonment in a fake rape case for no fault of his! This is terrible!

It must also be asked: How can those women who dare to hit men below the belt be allowed to escape so lightly with a mere warning or a fine of few thousand rupees? Laws meant for protection of women cannot be allowed under any circumstances to become a potent weapon to harm men below the belt in the most heinous manner under the garb of seeking justice for women!

Laws are meant to be used and not abused but most unfortunately we are seeing that in many cases laws meant to protect women are themselves becoming potent weapon of abuse and this is what needs to be checked, combated and decimated by punishing severely all those who dare to indulge in it! This is what our lawmakers are showing no intention to do and this is what merits course correction by immediately amending our concerned penal laws accordingly. It cannot be held in abeyance any longer now!

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top