[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Prashant Kumar Jha vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 5 February, 2026
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.02.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1013/2026
PRASHANT KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Yugant Parihar
and Mr. Yogeshwar Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI Arti, PS Vasant Kunj North
Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Advocate for R-2
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 623/2017 of Police Station
Vasant Kunj North for offence under Section 354D IPC on the ground that
the victim (respondent no. 2), who is daughter of the complainant de facto
has compromised the disputes with the petitioner.
2. Broadly speaking, according to the FIR, lodged on the complaint of
father of the respondent no. 2, the allegation against the petitioner is as
follows. On 22.10.2017, when respondent no. 2 was leaving her house, a
CRL. M.C. 1013/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6
fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80
cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
person asked her for direction to the Sector-76, in response whereof, she told
him to ask the guard. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 along with her sister sat in
her car and started driving. When their car stopped at the traffic signal, the
said person coming on his motorcycle parked the same and after opening the
rear left door of the car entered the car and sat inside. Immediately, the
respondent no. 2 came out of the car and alerted the nearby tea stall owner
and a taxi stand who apprehended the said man. The local police, on being
informed, reached and arrested the said man, who is petitioner before this
Court. The entire incident was captured on CCTV camera.
3. Learned APP accepts notice and submits that State has no objection to
this petition but some deterrent order be passed to discourage such acts of
lawlessness.
4. Respondent no. 2, daughter of the complainant de facto, identified by
IO/SI Arti also has appeared and accepts notice.
5. I have spoken with the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2. The
petitioner does not dispute the incident but submits that he has no reason to
explain as to why he behaved in such manner. On the other hand, respondent
no. 2 submits that she does not wish to pursue the prosecution of petitioner
because she has already appeared twice before the trial court for recording
of her testimony, but the same could not be done, and being mother of two
young children, she is unable to appear again before the trial court, so she
has no objection if this petition is allowed.
CRL. M.C. 1013/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f
b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c
Date: 2026.02.05 17:47:30 -08'00'
6. Ordinarily, in such cases, parties are referred to the Joint Registrar by
this Court for recording their statements. But in this case, looking at the
anguish of the victim, calling her again for statement before the Joint
Registrar would add to her suffering. It is for this reason that I spoke with
both sides at length.
7. 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. There is also no reason explained as to
why the petitioner left his motorcycle and entered car of the victim. The
only possible reason that comes to mind is apparent road rage and blatant
disregard for law.
8. Further, as mentioned above, in such situation, continuation of
further trial would be further victimization of respondent no. 2, who already
had to come twice to the trial court and now is not willing to come again as
she has two young children to look after.
9. I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice not to
compel the respondent no. 2 to further pursue prosecution of petitioner. But
at the same time, this matter raises serious concern about safety of ladies
even during broad daylight, that too, while travelling in their own car,
CRL. M.C. 1013/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f
b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.05 17:47:45 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:05.02.2026
17:55:24
considered to be a safer mode of travel as compared to public conveyance. It
is certainly not acceptable for anyone to enter into such private and secured
space of any lady without her consent. 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.
10. Therefore, the petition is allowed subject to the petitioner paying cost
of Rs.20,000/- to the victim through Investigating Officer within one week,
the FIR No. 623/2017 of Police Station Vasant Kunj North for offence under
Section 354D IPC as well as proceedings arising out of the same are
quashed. The Investigating Officer shall file specific report before the trial
court as to whether the cost has been paid to the victim or not. In case the
cost is not paid within one week, trial court proceedings shall continue, in
which the victim shall be examined only through videoconferencing from
her residence. For compliance, copy of this order be sent to the learned trial
court.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.05 17:48:01 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 05, 2026
'rs'
CRL. M.C. 1013/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages
