{"id":251440,"date":"2022-02-04T14:05:01","date_gmt":"2022-02-04T08:35:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=251440"},"modified":"2022-02-04T14:05:03","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T08:35:03","slug":"drop-of-a-hat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/cover-story-articles\/il-feature-news\/drop-of-a-hat\/","title":{"rendered":"Drop of a Hat"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Delhi High Court recently expressed anguish at the misuse of laws meant for protection of women from sexual harassment by falsely invoking the provision \u201cat the drop of a hat\u201d to register displeasure of the conduct of another individual. Justice Subramonium Prasad, while setting aside an FIR registered by the Delhi Police against an assistant professor of Delhi University, declared that such instances of laws meant for protecting women being used as tools for wreaking personal vengeance sets back the cause of women empowerment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Prasad noted: \u201cThis merely trivialises the offence of sexual harassment and casts doubts on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered in February last year at Jahangirpuri police station at the instance of petitioner\u2019s neighbour alleging sexual harassment and criminal intimidation at the hands of the petitioner. The case involves a dispute between neighbours over an illegal construction raised by the complainant in December 2016 on the rooftop of the building, thereby breaking the pipe that was being used to supply water to the petitioner\u2019s flat as well as blocking his source of ventilation. The petitioner and his wife made numerous representations regarding the illegal construction to the Delhi Development Authority and the local police. However, no action was taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the meantime, the petitioner\u2019s wife filed a civil suit seeking demolition of the illegal construction. Infuriated by the civil suit, the complainant and her family started abusing and threatening the petitioner and his family with dire consequences. As a corollary, the petitioner\u2019s wife lodged a complaint at the nearest police station. The police did not register an FIR upon her complaint and rather, pressurised the petitioner and his family to compromise on the matter. On their refusal to do so, the complainant in collusion with the police, lodged the instant FIR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant FIR was lodged with a mala fide intent in an attempt to coerce and arm-twist the petitioner and his family into withdrawing the complaint filed by petitioner\u2019s wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A detailed analysis of the provisions enumerated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, elucidates that the inherent powers conferred upon the High Courts to pass such orders as may be necessary can be exercised only in so far as it relates to preventing abuse of process of any Court or to securing the ends of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2014) laid down the twin objectives which guides High Courts while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482, which involves preventing abuse of the process of Court and\/or securing the ends of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been time and again observed that the inherent power for quashing of FIRs has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise meets the twin objectives specifically laid down in the provision itself, that is where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. vs Bhajan Lal and Ors 1992 laid down a clearly defined set of guidelines specifying conditions wherein the power to quash FIRs could be exercised. These are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n