Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court, recently directed a woman to provide sanitary napkins to a girls’ school for two months as a condition for dismissing a first information report (FIR) filed against her for extortion and criminal intimidation.

Justice Singh directed the woman to provide sanitary napkins to a girls’ school "not having less than 100 girls from Class-VI to XII" for two months and also stated that the school shall be identified by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP).

The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman namely Shilpi Chaudhary, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 384 (Punishment for Extortion) and 506 (Punishment for Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused who allegedly refused to pay an advocate and his senior colleague after retaining their legal services.

The FIR stated that despite providing the best professional services possible, the petitioner-woman misbehaved and failed to pay their professional fee. It is also stated that the petitioner-woman also filed an FIR against the Advocate eight months before the present FIR.

Court noted that during the pendency of the proceedings, a compromise was reached between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Court on February 26, 2022, in which both agreed to put a stop to the FIRs and also agreed to cooperate in getting the FIRs quashed. Both parties also expressed regret for their actions and promised not to repeat them in the future.

Brajesh Pandey the complainant, has also been advised not to file cases for the recovery of unpaid fees. Pandey also stated that he has no objection if the summoning order against the petitioner-woman is quashed.

The single-judge opined that prosecuting the complaint further would be futile as the parties have reached an agreement and wish to put an end to their dispute. However, opined that “I am of the view that considerable time of the police and judiciary has been wasted. The police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the parties and the useful time of the police which could have been utilized for important matters has been misdirected towards this case. Hence, the parties must do some social good.”

Accordingly, while quashing the petition, the court directed the Advocate to report to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) and do pro bono work for the next three months to "the best of his ability."

Case Title: Shilpi Chaudhary v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.