Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 1824
139 (2007) DELHI LAW TIMES 49
DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K. Sikri, J.
JASVINDER SINGH KALSI & ANR. - PETITIONER
Versus
STATE - RESPONDENT
Crl. M.C. Nos. 6598-99 of 2006
Decided on : 10.10.2006
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ravinder Singh. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Soni. Addl. Public Prosecutor; Complainant in-person.
The central legal point established is the importance of speedy trial in preventing miscarriage of justice and balancing the rights of the accused and the victims.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - Section 354/324/506, IPC - Section 320, Cr.P.C. - B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, II (2003) SLT 689=ll (2003) CCR 57 (SC)=I (2003) DMC 524 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC 1386 - The court discussed the serious nature of the allegations, the possibility of quashing the proceedings, and the importance of speedy trial in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR filed by the complainant against the petitioner for serious allegations of physical harm and outrage of modesty. A compromise was reached between the parties, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise was a result of the complainant's forced circumstances due to the delay in the disposal of the case. The court emphasized the need for speedy trial and the importance of balancing the rights of the accused and the victims.
Issues: The issues involved the serious nature of the allegations, the validity of the compromise, and the impact of delayed trials on the victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of speedy trial, the need to prevent miscarriage of justice, and the balance between the rights of the accused and the victims.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the proceedings was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the case within four months.
A.K. Sikri, J. (Oral)-- This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 78/2003 registered under Sections 354/324/506, IPC, P.S. Kirti Nagar.
2. The petitioner No.2 is the complainant and FIR is lodged by her against the petitioner No.1. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was working with the petitioner No. I as Counsellor. On 14.2.2003, the date she lodged the FIR, when she was in the office, the petitioner No. 1 at 1.00 p.m. took her to the two rooms on the backside where he wanted to start a boutique. The alleged incident which took place is narrated in the FIR in the following manner:
"He called me alone and tried to shut the door. When I resented then he shut the door and started misbehaving with me and told me that Navjot you have not behaved properly with me and given him pain. I told him that he should not talk to small servants but enquire from me. On this he started abusing me. I told him to control his tongue. Thereafter he got up from his seat and put his hand on my breast and further holding me from my waist he pulled me towards him and slapped me 3-4 times. When I tried to pull myself, he pushed me speedily; I fell down on shelf and got up. He pushed me second time and I fell down and the shelf broken down and fell on my hands. I got hurt on both my hands and when I shouted/screamed, the girls and boys from the adjoining rooms collected. I told that I will call the police. On this Mr. Kalsi told me that I can do what I want to, the entire police is in his pocket. My brother is on the post of Commissioner. On this one Gaurav Sharma and Vikas Sharma got frightened by seeing the blood coming out from my hand, took me to Khetrapal Nursing Home on rickshaw. I am getting myself treated here. I was waiting for my mother so that I can tell her whatever there is in my heart and tell her that I have been treated badly. Thereafter my mother talked to doctor and on the same time police was called. I told my mother the entire thing, he has put evil eye on me. I cannot excuse this man. He has hurt me and has threatened that me and my family would not be spared. Legal action be taken against him. I dont know the quantum of hurt I have received as I am still under treatment. Please help me."
3. The matter was investigated into and charge-sheet was filed. Arguments were heard and vide order dated 31.5.2004 charge is framed against the petitioner No.1. The matter is at the stage of evidence.
4. As per the averments made in this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, as recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 22.9.2006. The operative portion of this compromise reads as under:
"WHEREAS now with the intervention of family friends and elders of both the parties, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
WHEREAS the first party has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of medical/legal expenses and remaining dues of salary of the complainant/second party. In lieu of this the second party has agreed to withdraw her aforesaid complaint against the first party by moving an appropriate application under Section 320, Cr.P.C. before the Honble Court. After the execution of this agreement and withdrawal of the case there remains no dispute between the parties and the parties have settled all their claims, grievances, etc. against each other."
5. The perusal of the FIR extracted above would show that very serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner No.1 which are not only confined to harming the petitioner No.2 physically but, if correct, would tantamount to outraging her modesty as well. It may further be noted that while lodging this FIR, she specifically stated that she could not excuse this man, i. e. the petitioner No.1. Having regard to these allegations and the annoyance shown by the complainant at the time of lodging the FIR, I thought it proper to probe further into the matter to find out the reason which persuaded the complainan
