'Interest Of Justice' Doesn't Mean Burying Serious Charges Of Sexual Misconduct: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Despite Settlement

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR arising out of a matrimonial dispute despite a settlement between the parties, observing that serious allegations of sexual misconduct cannot be brushed aside in the name of compromise.Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the “interest of justice” does not mean burying grave allegations merely to bring quietus to a dispute or reduce pendency.“The expression “interest of justice” does not mean simply disposing of a matter to suit the convenience of the litigants and also to lessen the burden on dockets by one case. The High Court while exercising inherent powers cannot be expected to look the other way and allow such serious charges to go unpunished,” the bench remarked.The petitioners had approached the Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, 354 IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that all matrimonial disputes had been amicably settled with the complainant.Opposing the plea, the State pointed out that the FIR contained serious allegations of sexual misconduct against the complainant's brother-in-law, which could not be treated as part of a routine matrimonial dispute.The Court recorded that the complainant had levelled specific accusations of sexual misconduct and threats against the brother-in-law, which were affirmed by her in court.Thus refusing to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to “dump” such serious allegations, the Court said, “these are not the charges of mere matrimonial or civil wrong. These are heinous allegations of a lady against her brotherin-law.”The Court added it is not oblivious to rising trend of false matrimonial FIRs, but, “that the Court can take a general view that such allegations are always false and levelled only to ensure that the accused does not get released on bail.”It said each such case must be tested on its merits, otherwise, even the genuine victims would suffer.Appearance: Mr. Vardan Kharbanda, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with W/SI Pista Sharma Mr. Nikhil, Mr. Piyush Dixit and Mr. Dheeraj Singh, Advocates for R2 with complainant de facto in person Case title: Ashish Kalra And Others v. StateCase no.: CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Click here to read order

'Interest Of Justice' Doesn't Mean Burying Serious Charges Of Sexual Misconduct: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Despite Settlement

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags