Delhi High Court
Nitin Saxena vs State & Anr on 9 September, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2906/2010
Decided on 09.09.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
NITIN SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuraj Soni, Advocate and
Mr. Javed Alvi, Advocate with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State.
Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate with respondent
No.2/complainant in person.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482
of the Cr.PC, praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.302/2008 lodged by
the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner under Section 354
IPC, registered with Police Station: Aman Vihar, Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the incident of sexual
harassment, which was complained of by respondent No.2/complainant
against the petitioner, took place in the year 2008, when she and the
petitioner were both studying in an engineering institute. He submits that
the petitioner is a young man, aged 23 years and after completing his
education, is gainfully employed with a reputed private company and
continuation of the present case against the petitioner shall ruin his career.
He further states that the petitioner is genuinely repentant and has tendered
an apology to the respondent No.2/complainant for his misconduct and he
assures the Court that he shall never indulge in such reprehensible behavior
in future.
3. Counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court
to the Compromise Deed dated 20.08.2010, executed between the parties to
state that they have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and
volition with the intervention of the respective parents of the parties and
they have amicably settled all their inter se disputes. It is, therefore,
requested that the present FIR be quashed. Respondent No.2/complainant
is present in Court and states that ever since the date she lodged the
aforesaid complaint against the petitioner, he has not tried to approach her
or misbehave with her. She further states that she is not under any
pressure from any quarter and has voluntarily agreed not to press the FIR
lodged by her against the petitioner.
4. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in the recent past,
innumerable incidents of sexual harassment and eve teasing have been
brought to light in educational institutions, and the University campus,
where despite the fact that ragging has been banned, young men do not
hesitate in misbehaving with their female classmates in the name of
breaking the ice or getting acquainted with them. There have been
occasions when such actions have resulted in warping the psyche of the
students, who have been forced to the brink of committing suicide or have
actually taken their life on account of humiliation and disillusionment. This is
yet another example where sheer physical harassment caused to the
respondent No.2/complainant by the petitioner, who kept hounding her
within the college campus, drove her to seek refuge with the police
authorities. In fact, a perusal of the complaint reveals that regretfully, the
college authorities adopted an indifferent approach and did little to
ameliorate the situation, thus compelling the respondent No.2/complainant
to lodge a formal complaint.
5. The petitioner was not so young even in the year 2008 as to fail
to realize the adverse consequences of his misconduct. He is the son of a
government servant and belongs to an educated family and ought to have
conducted himself with greater dignity, discipline and restrain. Instead, he
crossed all bounds of decency.
6. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a young
man, has a long life ahead of him and his future career shall be jeopardized
if the criminal proceedings are continued against him and keeping in view
the fact that the respondent No.2 has forgiven him and confirms that he has
not misbehaved with her ever since the last incident which resulted in
lodging of the FIR, the present FIR is quashed, subject to the following
directions:-
(i) The petitioner shall compensate the respondent No.2/complainant by
paying costs of Rs.20,000/- to her within one week and hand over
proof of receipt to the learned APP.
(ii) The petitioner shall further pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the NGO
namely, "Nirmal Chhaya" within one week and hand over proof of
receipt to the learned APP.
(iii) The petitioner shall do some community service with the NGO, "Child
Relief & You"(CRY). He shall report to the Director/Manager of the
NGO, within two weeks to undertake duties as assigned to him for one
hour, once a week and continue to render service for a period of one
year. The Probation Officer of the area shall ensure that the petitioner
effectively discharges the duties assigned to him by the NGO. The
Director/Manager of the NGO shall forward a bi-monthly report of the
petitioner to the Probation Officer/SHO of the area. In case of any
absenteeism/default on the part of the petitioner, the same shall be
conveyed immediately by the NGO to the Probation Officer/SHO of the
area, who shall in turn inform the learned APP for the State, for
bringing the same to the notice of the Court and for seeking recall of
the orders passed today.
7. The petition is disposed of.
8. A copy of this order be given DASTI to learned APP to
communicate the same to the NGO and the Probation Officer of the area.
(HIMA KOHLI)
SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
