Delay in discharging an order by govt. authorities cannot be a reason for quashing the order itself: High court of Delhi

15 & 16 CRL.M.C. 533 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LAISHRAM PREMILA DEVI & ORS Petitioners Through Mr. R.S.Mishra Advocate THE STATE & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Hirein Sharma APP for the State. Mr. Pramod Tyagi and Mr. Anand Mishra Advocates for the complainant respondents No.2 to 4. CRL.M.C. 534 2021 NIRMALA KHATRI & ORS Through Mr. Pramod Tyagi and Mr. Anand Petitioners Mishra Advocates THE STATE & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. Hirein Sharma APP for the State. Mr. R.S.Mishra Advocate complainant respondents No.2 to 4. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R Crl.M.A.2683 2021(exemption) in CRL.M.C. 533 2021 Crl.M.A.2684 2021(exemption) in CRL.M.C. 534 2021 Allowed subject to all just exception. Crl.M.C.No.534 2021 WWW.LIVELAW.IN CRL.M.C. 533 2021 CRL.M.C. 534 2021 CRL.M.C. 533 2021 has been filed for quashing FIR No.239 2017 dated 12.05.2017 registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North) New Delhi for offences under Sections 509 506 323 341 354 354A and 34 IPC. The complainant respondent No.2 in the said FIR has alleged that on 12.05.2017 when she was going to drop her children to school the accused who reside in the neighbourhood beat her and outraged her modesty and also committed act of sexual harassment. The contents of FIR are not being repeated here. CRL.M.C. 534 2021 has been filed for quashing FIR No.238 2017 dated 12.05.2017 registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North) New Delhi for offences under Sections 509 506 323 341 354 354A and 34 IPC. The complainant in the said FIR is the accused in CRL.M.C. 533 2021. The allegation in this FIR is that the petitioners herein have committed offences punishable under Section 354 IPC i.e. assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The parties in all the FIRs are residents of 95 9 Kisangarh Vasant Kunj Delhi and are It is stated that with the intervention of some common friends relatives and family members the parties have settled their dispute and an oral settlement has been reached between the parties. It is stated that both the parties the petitioners and respondents in CRL.M.C. 533 2021 and CRL.M.C. 534 2021 have realised their mistake and they had decided to compromise the matter. As per the said oral settlement the parties have agreed that they will approach this Court for the quashing of the abovementioned FIRs. It is Crl.M.C.No.534 2021 WWW.LIVELAW.IN stated that they had agreed that they will maintain harmonious relations with each other. It is requested that the FIRs be quashed as the dispute has been amicably resolved. The parties have also filed their respective affidavits affirming the fact that the matter has been settled amicably. It is also stated that the complainants in both the petitions do not have any objection if the instant FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 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 from withdrawing a complaint instituted against them or to arm twist a party. Offences under Sections 354 354A 354B 354C 354D IPC are serious offences. Such allegations have the effect of tarnishing the image of the person against whom such allegations are made. Allegations regarding these offences cannot be made at a drop of a hat. This practice is an abuse of the process of law. The instant case is a classic example as to how frivolous allegations of Section 354 and 354A have been levelled by the parties against each other. A small fight regarding parking has been escalated by levelling allegation of outraging modesty of women. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that the police force is very limited. Police personnel have to spend time in investigating frivolous cases. They have to attend court proceedings prepare Status Report etc. The result is that investigation in serious offences gets compromised and accused escape because of shoddy investigation. Time has come to initiate action against persons who file frivolous complaints under Sections 354 354A 354B 354C 354D IPC etc. only for ulterior purpose. Some of the petitioners in these instant petitions are students who should understand not to take courts Crl.M.C.No.534 2021 WWW.LIVELAW.IN and the police for granted and assume that anything and everything can be settled and they can get away by filing false cases. In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting with the present proceedings. Resultantly the FIR No.238 2017 and FIR No.239 2017 dated 12.05.2017 under Sections 509 506 323 341 354 354A and 34 IPC registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North) New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The parties shall remain bound by the mutual settlement and the undertaking given to the Court. Since the Police has had to spend valuable time in investigating the offence and considerable time has been spent by the Court in the criminal proceedings initiated by the parties this Court is inclined to impose cost on the petitioners with a warning not to file false and frivolous cases. The petitioners in CRL.M.C. 533 2021 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30 000 with ‘DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund’ within three weeks from today and the petitioners in CRL.M.C.534 2021 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30 000 with ‘DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund’ within three weeks from today. Details of the Account are as under: Account Name: DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund Account Number: Bank Name: UCO Bank Crl.M.C.No.534 2021 WWW.LIVELAW.IN Branch: Sher Shah Road New Delhi IFSC Code: Copy of the receipts be also filed with the Registry to show compliance of the order. The petitions stand disposed of in above terms. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J. FEBRUARY 23 2021 Crl.M.C.No.534 2021 

Summary: In cases when government authorities have passed a detention order of an individual, such detention order cannot be cancelled merely because there has been a delay in the execution of such an order and the delay does not vitiate the order itself.  This was decided in the case of Harmeet Singh  Vs. Union Of India, Central Economic Intelligence &amp; Ors [W.P.(Crl.) 1166/2020 &amp; Crl.M.A. 10239/2020]  in The High Court Of Delhi by double bench consisting of Hon’ble  Justice Vipin Sanghi and  Hon’ble Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar. The present writ petition was made to assail the Detention Order issued against the petitioner by Respondent – Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The facts of the case are that on the basis of certain specific intelligence contraband items such as drones, foreign branded cigarettes etc. were recovered from the petitioner.  When questioned, he admitted he had bought the items to sell in the Indian market and gain profits, and revealed, smuggling similar contraband items into the Indian Territory. The submission advanced by counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned Detention Order was issued after an inordinate delay of 1 year and 4 months, or about 490 Days, and that this long delay is fatal to the Detention Order, for which reliance was placed on Licil Antony Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, (2014) 11 SCC 326. The Respondents have defended their action, and it is contended that there is no delay in either sending the fresh proposal for detention. They submit that they have been pursuing the matter with utmost diligence, and have been investigating the case against the petitioner with a proactive approach, and no delay has been caused. It was also contended that Consequent upon the forensic examination of the mobile phone of the petitioner which unearthed additional facts, and incriminating materials, a fresh proposal dated 13.03.20 was forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority to the CEIB, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, for preventive detention of petitioner for being a repeat offender. The court observed that prima-facie it could not be concluded that the Detention Order is belated, or that the live-link between the prejudicial activity – on the basis of which the Detention Order had been passed, and the object of detention i.e. the need to detain the petitioner to prevent him from undertaking similar prejudicial activity in future, has been snapped. A Detention Order can validly be assailed even at the pre-execution stage, though on limited grounds. This position was recognized by the Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 496, which enlists some of the grounds on which the Detention Order could be assailed even prior to execution.