In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court expressed serious concern over the increasing misuse of legal provisions dealing with sexual harassment, particularly under sections 354 and related sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In a landlord-tenant dispute, which escalated into allegations of outraging modesty, the court not only quashed the cross-FIRs filed by both parties but also stressed the need to sensitize lawyers to prevent the abuse of such serious legal provisions. Justice Subramonium Prasad, while delivering the judgment, pointed out that frivolous complaints are being filed in civil disputes, misusing laws meant to protect victims of sexual harassment. The court’s strong remarks call for greater ethical responsibility from the legal fraternity to avoid manipulation of the legal process.
Background of the Case:
The matter arose from two cross-complaints in the cases of Ms. Rajesh Wadhwa & Ors. vs. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 7271/2024) and Ms. Naveen Agarwal & Ors. vs. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 7302/2024), where both parties, a landlord and a tenant, accused each other of criminal offenses including assault and outraging modesty under IPC sections 323, 354, 354B, 506, and 509. Both sides later reached an out-of-court settlement and sought the quashing of the FIRs filed against each other.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Frivolous Use of IPC Sections 354 and Related Offences:
The case highlighted a growing concern with the misuse of laws meant to protect women from sexual harassment. Both parties filed cross-complaints alleging offenses under IPC sections 354 (outraging modesty) and related provisions, in what was essentially a landlord-tenant dispute. This raised critical questions about the abuse of the legal process and how serious accusations of sexual harassment are sometimes misused in civil disputes.
2. Role of Lawyers in Encouraging Frivolous Cases:
The court addressed the role of legal professionals in instigating or advising parties to file such frivolous complaints. It noted that lawyers must be more cautious and ethical in guiding their clients, especially in cases involving grave allegations such as sexual harassment.
3. Power to Quash FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The legal issue of whether the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences based on a mutual settlement was also at the forefront. The court relied on precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which allows the quashing of FIRs in civil disputes if a compromise has been reached and the possibility of conviction is remote.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
Presiding over the case, Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad quashed both FIRs (No. 148/2018 and No. 146/2018) but issued a strong warning about the growing trend of filing frivolous sexual harassment complaints. The court remarked that such allegations have a serious and long-lasting impact on the accused and are often used to pressure the other party into settling civil disputes, such as landlord-tenant disagreements.
Justice Prasad observed:
“Unfortunately, it is now becoming a trend to register FIRs alleging offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC either to force a party to withdraw a complaint instituted against them or to arm twist a party.” He expressed concern over how frivolous allegations tarnish the reputation of the accused and waste precious judicial time. The court emphasized, “Such allegations cannot be made at the drop of a hat. This practice is an abuse of the process of law.”
In a pointed critique, the court remarked that lawyers themselves must be sensitized to prevent such misuse of the legal process. The judge noted that some lawyers are advising clients to file baseless complaints, further contributing to the abuse of laws meant to protect genuine victims. The court stated: “It is also unfortunate to see that lawyers are advising and instigating parties to file such frivolous cases. Time has come to sensitize lawyers as well so as to ensure that the process of law is not abused.”
Costs Imposed for Filing Frivolous Cases:
While quashing the FIRs, the court made it clear that the parties could not walk away without consequences. Justice Prasad imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on each petitioner, directing the payment to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund. This penalty was imposed as a deterrent against filing false cases and to underscore the court’s disapproval of misusing the legal system. The parties were instructed to submit payment receipts to the investigating officer and the court registry.
