Delhi High Court: In a case of an FIR registered by a woman (‘respondent 2′) alleging rape charges under the influence of misguidance and ill advice, Jasmeet Singh, J. deprecated her conduct as the criminal justice system has been put in motion on account of her whims and fancies. The woman later accepted her mistake and brought before the Court regarding settling her dispute via compromise deed with the man. The Court however, directed the woman to work at blind school and the accused implicated falsely (‘petitioner’) to plant 50 trees as punishment.
An FIR was registered alleging that the petitioner offered cold drink to a woman (‘respondent 2′), after which she fell unconscious and thereafter, the petitioner raped the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, a compromise deed was filed dated 24-05-2022 stating as follows:
“1. That the Second Party acknowledges that the First Party never established physical relations with her against her will. The Second Party was having a money dispute with the First Party, due to which she was disturbed and under some ill-advice and misguidance, she got the subject FIR registered against the First Party. The Parties, have now settled all their grievances and disputes without any force, undue influence or coercion from any side, out of their sweet/free will and choice and the parties are not under collusion.”
Respondent 2 submitted that she has been undergoing mental depression, as a result of which under misguided and wrong advice she has registered the FIR.
The Court noted that the allegations in the FIR and the compromise deed are totally opposite, and the conduct of respondent No. 2 is very unfair and is a total abuse and misuse of the process of law. It was also taken note of the fact that respondent 2 is staying with her family and has 4 children (one daughter aged 12 years and a set of triplets aged around 3 years.)
Taking a lenient view in light of the facts above and that respondent 2 made amends on the very next date and accepted that she was under the influence of wrong advice when she recorded her statement under 164 Criminal Procedure Code, (‘CrPC’), the Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
The Court also directed respondent 2 to work at All India Confederation of the Blinds for a period of 3 hours, 5 days a week for a period of 2 months.
The Court further directed the petitioner to plant 50 trees with the following compliance:
a) The petitioner also undertakes to plant 50 trees in consultation with the Investigating Officer, who shall get in touch with the Horticulture Department of the MCD, Rohini Zone and indicate the area, where the trees are to be planted.
b) The MCD, Rohini zone, West or South West Delhi is directed to identify the land, lane, area where the trees are to be planted. The trees need not be in one cluster but can be spread over and can be adjoining a road, a lane, an area alongside periphery wall of a building, part, etc.
c) Each tree shall have a nursery life of 3 years and the petitioners will look after their respective allotted trees for 5 years. The learned SC, for the State shall be informed with regard to each and every step in this regard. The 6 monthly status report along with photograph shall be filed. The above planting of trees shall be completed within a period of 6 weeks from today.
d) The concerned I.O. shall be in touch with the petitioner to do the needful.
e) After initial planting of trees, the I.O. will file a compliance report. The petitioners will file a status report every 6 months giving the status of trees planted along with photographs.
[Himanshu Goel v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2315, decided on 18-07-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioner- Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Pranaveer Pratap Singh, Advs.
For respondent- Mr. Sueriya Manan with Mr. Karan Jeet, Mr. Rai Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.