The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man accused of forcefully entering a woman’s car at a traffic signal. Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the petition, observing that compelling the victim to continue with the trial would amount to “further victimization,” given her personal difficulties in attending court proceedings. The Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner, sternly noting his “high-handedness” and “apparent road rage.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 623/2017 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North. As per the complaint filed by the victim’s father, the incident occurred on October 22, 2017. The victim (Respondent No. 2) was leaving her house when the petitioner approached her asking for directions to Sector-76. She advised him to inquire with the guard.
Subsequently, while the victim and her sister were waiting at a traffic signal in their car, the petitioner, who had arrived on a motorcycle, parked his vehicle, opened the rear left door of the car, and sat inside. The victim immediately exited the vehicle and raised an alarm, alerting a nearby tea stall owner and taxi stand personnel who apprehended the petitioner. The entire sequence of events was captured on CCTV.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, Prashant Kumar Jha, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that he had reached a compromise with the victim. He did not dispute the incident during his interaction with the Court but offered no explanation for his conduct.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), submitted that it had no objection to the petition but urged the Court to pass a “deterrent order” to discourage such acts of lawlessness.
The victim appeared before the Court and stated that she did not wish to pursue the prosecution. She explained that she had already appeared before the trial court twice for recording her testimony, which could not be completed. She submitted that as a mother of two young children, she was unable to appear again before the trial court and thus had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Girish Kathpalia, while considering the petition, expressed serious concern over the nature of the incident. The Court observed that such actions raise questions about the safety of women even when travelling in private vehicles.
Regarding the petitioner’s conduct, Justice Kathpalia observed: “I find substance in the submission of learned APP that the kind of high-handedness shown by the petitioner by opening door of car in which two girls were travelling and then sitting inside the car without their consent for no reason, has to be dealt with sternly; one has to visualize the scare that would have been caused to the girls.”
The Court further noted that the only possible explanation for the petitioner leaving his motorcycle to enter the victim’s car was “apparent road rage and blatant disregard for law.”
However, the Court prioritized the victim’s plea regarding the hardship of continuing the trial. The Court reasoned that keeping the proceedings alive would be detrimental to the victim’s interest.
“The prosecution of petitioner needs to be curtailed not on account of any positive factor in his favour, but on account of negative factors against the respondent no. 2, who already suffered during the alleged incident and despite repeated visits, she is not certain of how many more such court visits she would have to make,” the Court stated.
The Court held that forcing the respondent to pursue the prosecution would constitute “further victimization.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 623/2017 along with all consequential proceedings, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 20,000 to the victim through the Investigating Officer within one week.
The Court directed the Investigating Officer to file a compliance report before the trial court regarding the payment. The Court further stipulated that if the cost is not paid within the specified time, the trial court proceedings shall continue. In such an event, the Court directed that the victim “shall be examined only through videoconferencing from her residence” to minimize her inconvenience.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Prashant Kumar Jha v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1013/2026
- Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
