Delhi HC Directs Woman To Provide Pads To Girls' School For 2 Months To Quash Case

The Delhi High Court directed a woman to provide sanitary pads to a girls’ school for two months as the condition to quash an extortion case lodged against her.

The high court quashed the first information report (FIR) after noting that no purpose would be served in prosecuting the complaint as the parties arrived at a settlement and wished to put an end to the dispute between them.

Delhi HC Directs Woman To Provide Pads To Girls School

The high court directed the complainant, a lawyer, to undertake pro bono work (done free of cost for public cost) for the next three months. She was to report to the office of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) and take up pro bono work. And, the petitioner was to provide sanitary napkins to a girls' school for two months.

The high court said, “the FIR is quashed subject to the petitioner (woman) providing sanitary napkins to a girls’ school, which will be identified by the prosecutor”. The court added that the girls’ school selected should not have less than 100 girl students from class 6 to 12 and that the petitioner will provide the pads for a period of two months.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said, “I am of the view that considerable time of the police and judiciary has been wasted.” He added that the police machinery was put in motion based on the account of the complainant and petitioner and that the useful time of the police could have been utilised for important matters instead of toward the case. Singh said, “Hence, the parties must do some social good”.

The petitioner sought to quash an FIR filed against her by the lawyer for alleged extortion and criminal intimidation. The lawyer had filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had sought her legal professional consultancy from her and a colleague but did not pay the fees.

The complainant also alleged that her client, the petitioner, also misbehaved with her.

An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 384 (punishment for extortion) and Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner had also registered an FIR against the complainant eight months before the lawyer registered the FIR.

While the proceedings were pending, the two parties reached a compromise and decided to work toward quashing the FIRs quashed. Both parties informed the Delhi High Court they regretted their actions and the court imposed conditions on both parties for quashing the FIR.

Suggested Reading: Someone Tell IAS Harjot Kaur, Condoms And Sanitary Pads Should Be Provided For Free