Reported By: Sanya Talwar
Last Updated: March 05, 2024, 16:04 IST
The excessive court docket additional identified that it was happy that the offence concerned within the matter was solely ‘private in nature’. Representational picture
The excessive court docket famous that the complainant filed an FIR in opposition to the accused at Itanagar and due to the intervention of the households, they entered right into a settlement deed as each individuals had been identified to one another
The Meghalaya High Court has held that compromise between events in a sexual harassment case underneath Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code doesn’t disturb public order and tranquility. Justice B Bhattacharjee famous that the complainant filed an FIR in opposition to the accused at Itanagar and due to the intervention of the households, they entered right into a settlement deed as each individuals had been identified to one another.
“The learned counsel submits that Section 354A IPC is not a compoundable offence and in such a situation petitioner have no other option but to approach this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,” the bench famous, whereas quashing the FIR in opposition to the accused man.
The High Court additionally took word of the truth that since a compromise deed had been entered into, the state didn’t want to pursue the case in opposition to the accused man.
The HC relied on a 2010 judgement of the Supreme Court, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and Another, which said that in circumstances the place the excessive court docket quashes a felony continuing, securing the ends of justice is the last word guiding issue.
The apex court docket ruling had additionally identified that having regard to the truth that the dispute between the offender and the sufferer has been settled though the offences aren’t compoundable, the excessive court docket can accomplish that as in its opinion a continuation of felony proceedings “will be an exercise in futility” and justice within the “case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored”.
The single-judge bench additional identified that it was happy that the offence concerned within the matter was solely “personal in nature”.
It stated that the offence doesn’t have an effect on public peace and tranquillity. “It also appears that the compromise attained would bring about peace and secure ends of justice. Moreover, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and not by quashing the criminal proceeding, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice defeated,” the court docket famous.
