In an unusual legal resolution, the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a man and his two sons, who were accused of molesting and injuring a female relative.
The court’s decision came after it was confirmed that the families involved had amicably resolved the dispute, with no threats, pressure, or coercion influencing their settlement. The judge noted that the disputes stemmed from family issues.
In an unusual twist, rather than imposing a financial penalty on the petitioners, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta ordered them to plant 50 neem saplings each. These saplings, which must be up to three feet in height, are to be planted in the area of the Chhawla police station. The petitioners are required to coordinate with the competent authorities—namely, the Horticulture Department of the MCD, the DDA, the Conservator of Forests, and the Department of Forests and Wildlife, Government of NCT of Delhi—through the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer at Chhawla Police Station.
The Court has directed that photographs of planted saplings, along with a report from the police official, be submitted to it within eight weeks. The upkeep of these saplings or trees must be managed by the relevant authorities.
Additionally, the Court stated that if there is non-compliance with the tree planting directives, the petitioners would be required to deposit a cost of Rs 50,000 each with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The Court was addressing a petition filed by a man and his sons seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against them in 2015. The FIR included various alleged offenses such as molestation, causing hurt, theft, and wrongful restraint.
The complainant, a woman, accused the man and his two sons of assaulting her husband and brother-in-law and of misbehaving with her by outraging her modesty. The complainant and the accused were relatives.
The petitioners argued that the disputes arose from family issues, which have since been resolved through mediation. A cross FIR was lodged against the complainant’s side by the wife of one of the petitioners, which was subsequently quashed by a coordinate bench of the High Court.
In quashing the FIR, the High Court observed that both parties wished to end the proceedings amicably, which would foster harmony and allow them to move forward. The Court noted that the likelihood of conviction was low given the settlement and that no past involvement of the petitioners had been presented to the Court.
