In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) that had been filed against a man who was accused of gazing at a female co-passenger on a domestic aircraft for an extended period of time.
The ruling was made after both parties had achieved a mutually agreeable settlement and asked the court to putting an end to the dispute. The court highlighted that continuing with the criminal procedures would not serve any helpful purpose, particularly considering that the complainant herself had no objections to the case being dismissed.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja presided over the hearing of the case, which was referred to as W.P.(CRL) 348/2025. On May 30, 2025, she gave the oral verdict.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Historical Context of the Case
Flight number 91928, which was traveling from Indore to Delhi at the time, was the one that sustained the event on May 28, 2024. The complainant, who is referred to as Respondent No. 2 in the court papers, claims that her fellow passenger, Prashant Pareek, gazed at her in a relentless manner for the whole of the trip, which caused her to feel exceedingly uncomfortable.
Following her arrival at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, the lady submitted a formal complaint to the administration of law enforcement.
On the basis of her allegation, the police filed a First Information Report (FIR) number 370/2024 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses actions that are designed to offend the modesty of a woman. On May 29, 2024, the First Information Report (FIR) was submitted at PS IGI Airport.
Processes of the Law and Conflict Resolution
As the court processes progressed, both sides came to the conclusion that they would settle the dispute on amicable terms. An agreement to settle the dispute was signed by both parties on December 16, 2024, and a copy of the agreement was sent to the court.
After then, on May 22, 2025, the issue was scheduled to be brought before the Joint Registrar. It was confirmed that the issue had been handled willingly, without any compulsion, force, or undue influence, by both the petitioner and the complainant, who physically stood before the court and provided their testimony under oath.
During the court proceedings, the Investigating Officer, Sergeant Beena from PS IGI Airport, was also present and confirmed the names of both of the people involved. Additionally, the statement of the Investigating Officer was recorded in order to guarantee that the settlement was legitimate and free from any intervention from other sources.
Observations Made by the Bar
On the 30th of May, 2025, Justice Ravinder Dudeja presided over the hearing of the case, which was attended by all sides and their respective legal representatives.
The court took notice of the fact that the complainant had unequivocally declared that she did not have any objections to the First Information Report (FIR) being quashed and that the issue had been handled of her own will.
Considering the fact that the parties had reached a mutually agreeable settlement, the Additional Public Prosecutor who was representing the State also argued that the State did not have any objections to the FIR being quashed.
The decision that Justice Dudeja made in his opinion made reference to the historic decision that the Supreme Court made in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
The Supreme Court had made the observation that High Courts are required to assess whether it would be unjust or contrary to the interest of justice to continue criminal proceedings in circumstances where the parties have resolved their dispute peacefully.
In the event that the continuance of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process, the High Court is entirely within its authority to dismiss the case.
Justification for the Suspension of the Case
Using the principles that were established in Gian Singh, Justice Dudeja came to the conclusion that continuing with the case would not be beneficial since both parties had settled their disagreements and the complainant had not raised any objections to the quashing of the FIR.
A statement was made by the court stating that any further actions would merely place an unnecessary load on the legal system and would be in direct opposition to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, it would be an abuse of process to force the parties to continue litigation after they have reached a resolution to their existing disagreement.
As a result, the court granted the petition that was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Additionally, the court dismissed the First Information Report (FIR) No. 370/2024 and all of the proceedings that were a result of it.
Regarding the Importance of the Decision
This particular case exemplifies the judiciary’s ability to be adaptable and pragmatic when it comes to dealing with topics in which disagreements may be settled peacefully amongst the parties involved.
In accordance with the overarching notion that not all criminal cases, particularly those of a personal character and non-heinous offenses, need to result in extended litigation, the ruling is in accordance with this philosophy.
It is clear from the fact that the court relied on the Gian Singh precedent that the judicial system actively favors settlements in cases that are suitable in order to minimize the backlog of litigation and to create peace among the interested parties.
At the same time, the case sheds light on the sensitivity with which the judicial system deals with charges of sexual harassment or behavior that is believed to disrespect the modesty of a woman.
In this particular instance, the dismissal of the case was not a comment on the gravity of the initial complaint; rather, it was an acknowledgment that the parties had successfully settled the situation.
A balanced approach to justice is shown by the judgment of the Delhi High Court to dismiss the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Prashant Pareek. Despite the fact that it took complaints of harassment very seriously, the court emphasized the significance of individual liberty and the need to respect settlements reached via mutual consent.
After everything was said and done, the decision reiterated the court’s responsibility in ensuring that the legal process is not used to prolong disputes that are not required, particularly in situations where both parties are looking for closure.
