New Delhi: Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, but directed the accused to perform community service for a month at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital. The man was accused of harassing and threatening a minor school-going girl.A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also ordered him to pay Rs 50,000 as costs, to be deposited towards Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties. “Having regard to the nature of allegations, this court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to undertake community service as a measure of accountability and reflection,” the judge said, ordering community service from June 1 to 30, 2025.Initially, the court was not inclined to quash the FIR in a perfunctory manner. However, after a detailed and careful interaction with the complainant and her mother, the court noted that they consciously chose to move on. “They expressed that the complainant is currently exploring matrimonial prospects, and that the pendency of a criminal case may result as a serious impediment to her future opportunities and personal relationships,” the bench said. “Her mother specifically submitted that ongoing criminal proceedings of this nature are likely to create social stigma and could undermine the family’s efforts to secure a suitable match for the complainant,” it added.The FIR was registered under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman to outrage her modesty), 354C (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting modesty of a woman), 384 (extortion) and 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (sexual harassment) of Pocso Act. A settlement deed was entered into between the parties, according to which the complainant voluntarily resolved all her disputes with the accused and agreed to give no objection to the quashing of the FIR. It was recorded that she neither received any monetary compensation from the accused nor intended to claim any.The court noted that ordinarily, allegations of such nature, particularly those involving the sexual harassment of a minor, would not merit quashing. However, it added that the law was equally cognisant of the survivor’s right to privacy, dignity and closure. Observing that the allegations pertain to a deeply troubling pattern of coercion and intimidation directed at a school-going minor, including threats to publicly disseminate her private photographs in exchange for money, the bench said that such behaviour, if true, reflected a gross misuse of digital platforms and an alarming disregard for consent and personal dignity.
