The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered at Police Station Vikaspuri, Delhi for offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the complainant and the petitioner have amicably settled the matter.

While delivering order, Justice Subramonium Prasad imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the accused and also directed him to do one-month community service at Society for Promotion of Youth and Masses Centre.

The petitioner in this case has filed this petition with the prayer that the High Court shall exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the concerned FIR against the accused as the matter has been settled between the accused and the complainant.

The complaint was filed against the accused on July 15, 2020 by the complainant under Sections 354 (assaulting a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused had constantly tried to speak to the complainant even though she had explicitly stated that she wasn’t interested.

The accused had then hit the complainant on the face and had twisted her hands, although the complainant had retaliated by hitting the accused back as well. When she started shouting, the public started gathering around them and the accused ran away. The accused was then arrested on July 21, 2020 and then charged under Sections 354 and 506.

Read Also: Red Fort violence case: Deep Sidhu bail application to be heard by ASJ Charu Aggarwal tomorrow

If the parties have compromised and settled the matter amongst themselves in the given facts and circumstances then the courts have the power to quash the complaint otherwise it will cause a prejudicial effect on the accused and would lead to grave injustice to the accused.

The High Court stated that since the complainant doesn’t want to pursue the matter further, continuing the prosecution would be futile.

The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday quashed and set aside the presiding officer’s order with the observation that “non-speaking order always leads to arbitrariness and if arbitrariness is present, equality is always absent”.

A single-judge bench of Justice S.N. Pathak passed this judgment while disposing the petition filed by Md. Moizuddin through Advocate A.K. Sahani with a prayer for quashing the award dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 96 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal erroneously directed the enrolment of the name of the workman at the bottom of Category II.

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is non-speaking, cryptic, vague, capricious and unreasoned award. He further submits that the tribunal without appreciating the evidences and documents, brought on record, had passed the impugned award and as such, for the ends of justice, same may be quashed and set aside and the matter may kindly be remitted back to the concerned tribunal for reconsideration.

A.K. Das, counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Coalfields Limited, Bokaro, vehemently opposes the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is beyond the terms of reference. It is the case of promotion and petitioner is not entitled for the same. However, regarding the contents/ findings of the award, counsel for the respondent remained silent.

Also Read: Delhi HC seeks Centre, others’ response on plea for simplifying procedure for adopting foster kids

The Court while going through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the documents brought on record, held that impugned award is a non-speaking order as no reasons have been assigned. The impugned order is capricious and whimsical and has been passed in a mechanical manner. “The learned tribunal without dealing with any evidences and documents, had passed the impugned award. Non-speaking order always leads to arbitrariness and if arbitrariness is present, equality is always absent.”

“As a cumulative effect of the observations, rules, guidelines and the judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that dated 25.04.2014 is not at all tenable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for reconsidering the same and to pass a fresh award, after taking evidences and documents lead by both the parties, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,”

-the Court ordered while disposing the petition.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Madhya Pradesh High Court yesterday rejected the petition of producer Ekta Kapoor for quashing the FIR lodged for the controversial scenes of Season 2 of the web series ‘XXX’ aired on the OTT platform Alt Balaji.

An FIR was registered against Kapoor in a local police station five months ago on charges of spreading obscenity through the broadcasting of the web series, offending ‘religious sentiments’, and insulting national symbols.

Justice Shailendra Shukla of the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court gave a detailed verdict while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

After reviewing the pleas of all the concerned parties, the single bench said in a 65-page judgment that it seems that the facts of the trial are not such that the court at least uses its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR at least in respect of Section 67, 67-A of IT Act and Section 294 of IPC.

However, the court has given relief to Kapoor in connection with the allegations made in the FIR for hurting religious sentiments and improper use of national emblems through the telecast of the web series.

The single bench remarked in its judgment that it would be sufficiently fair to say that the provisions of Section 298 (Offending religious sentiments) in IPC and the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act has not been found in the case.

Kapoor had filed a petition in the high court denying the allegations leveled against him in the FIR lodged by the city’s Annapurna police on June 5 and pleaded with the court to quash the case.

 A police official said that the FIR came on the complaint of two local residents – Valmik Sakaragaye and Neeraj Yagnik – along with sections 294 (obscenity) and 298 (offending religious sentiments) of the Indian Penal Code, and the state emblem of India ( Prohibition of improper use) Act was registered.

He said in the complaint that Season 2 of the web series “XXX” aired on Kapoor’s established OTT platform Alt Balaji, spread vulgarity in society, and hurt the religious sentiments of a particular community. It also alleged that in one scene of the web series, the national symbols were insulted by presenting the uniform of the Indian Army in a very objectionable manner.

-India Legal Bureau

New Delhi (ILNS): The Meghalaya High Court has rejected the plea to quash criminal proceedings against a journalist Patricia Mukhim from Shillong for her four-month-old Facebook post condemning the attack on five non-tribal youths by a gang of masked men, allegedly from the tribal community.

The court has rejected her plea considering this post as disharmonious as it “apparently seeks to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between two communities.”

Mukhim, a Padma Shri awardee and the editor of The Shillong Times, has said that she would contest the ruling in the Supreme Court as soon as possible because in her post she had only “raised” the issue of “continued” attacks on non-tribals in the state.

Her post states: “…The attackers, allegedly tribal boys with masks on, should be immediately booked. This continued attack on non-tribals in Meghalaya whose ancestors have lived here for decades, some having come here since the British period, is reprehensible to say the least. The fact that such attackers and trouble mongers since 1979 have never been arrested and if arrested, never penalised according to law, suggests that Meghalaya has been a failed state for a long time now.” 

The alleged post had been written about the attack held on July 3 on a group of boys by another group, resulting in injuries to the victims. Seven persons were arrested.

The high court said after going through the Facebook post: “… What can be deduced is that there is an attempt to make a comparison between tribals and non-tribals vis-à-vis their rights and security and the alleged tipping of the balance in favour of one community over the other. 

“This, in the opinion of this court, would fall on the mischief of Section 153A (a) IPC as it apparently seeks to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between two communities.”

Mukhim told the media: “My Facebook post was not to create communal disharmony but to uphold the human rights of those assaulted by arresting the assaulters so that the rule of law is upheld for every citizen irrespective of community.”

New Delhi (ILNS): The Calcutta High Court has quashed a police charge sheet against Union Minister Babul Supriyo for passing ‘objectionable’ comments at TMC MP Mahua Moitra during a TV debate in 2017.

Moitra, who was elected as a Lok Sabha MP in 2019, had filed an FIR against Supriyo, alleging that he had made comments that amounted to intending to outrage her modesty during a debate on a national television channel in 2017. The said debate was anchored by Barkha Dutta and titled The Buck Stops Here.

The complaint against Supriyo was lodged at the Alipore police station in Kolkata on January 4, 2017. On March 10, 2017, the Alipore chief judicial magistrate (CJM) had issued a warrant against Supriyo after the police submitted a charge sheet wherein the BJP leader was marked as ‘absconding’. Supriyo had approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the charge sheet.

In the hearing various earlier judgments related to cases as to what constitutes outraging the modesty of a woman, were referred to by both parties.

A single bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had observed that:

“The penal code recognizes assault, criminal force or insult of woman’s modesty as offence. When the essence of modesty has been described as the sex of a woman, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by no stretch of imagination the definition can be widened to include an assault or insult on the qualities of goodness, sensitivity, gentleness, empathy etc of a woman.”

“It is expected from a representative of the people that he must be courteous in his behaviour, dignified in his manners and cautious on the words spoken by him,” held the High Court.

While quashing the charge sheet the Court ordered that:

“From the above discussion, I have already come to the conclusion that the allegations in the first information report and other materials, accompanying the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence under Section 509 of the IPC. Therefore, the charge sheet being No 27 dated March 8, 2017 filed under Section 509 of the IPC is liable to be quashed.”

The court further held that the utterance made by the Minister was “defamatory statement within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code” , and granted liberty to  Moitra ” to take any action, according to law, if available to her against the petitioner before the appropriate forum and in such case”.

Read Also: Supreme Court disallows Republic CFO plea against Mumbai Police FIR in TRP scam

During the ending moments of the programme, at a comment that Moitra made, Supriyo had asked the MP: “Mohua, are you sure you are not on mohua?” Mohua is an intoxicating drink widely used and consumed in certain districts of West Bengal.

-ILNS