Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Delhi HC Orders Woman to Provide Sanitary Napkins to Girls’ School as Condition for Quashing Extortion Case

2 min read
Delhi High Court Law Insider

Khushi Bajpai

Published on: October 3, 2022 at 20:01 IST

In order to get a First Information Report (FIR) filed against her for extortion and criminal intimidation quashed after the parties resolved their disagreement, the Delhi High Court recently ordered a lady to donate sanitary napkins to a girls’ school for two months.

The woman was ordered by the court to donate sanitary napkins for a period of two months to a girls’ school with “not less than 100 students from Class-VI to XII.” The additional public prosecutor was asked to locate the mentioned institution.

Justice Jasmeet Singh’s single-judge panel was considering a quashing petition submitted by a woman who reportedly refused to pay an attorney and his senior colleague after hiring them for legal assistance.

“Despite providing the highest caliber professional services, the petitioner misbehaved and failed to pay their fee. As a result, the FIR,” the order noted.

The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) and undertake pro bono work to the “best of his capacity” for the ensuing three months, according to fresh instructions from the court.

After a significant amount of time was lost by the court and the authorities in the process, the order was made in the hopes that the parties would resolve their disagreement amicably.

In 2018, the lawyer filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Preet Vihar police station accusing the woman of Extortion (Section 384) and Criminal Intimidation (Section 506).

Eight months prior to the one against her, the woman also filed a police report against the advocate.

On February 16, the parties came to an agreement in front of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, where they agreed to work together to have the FIRs dismissed. The parties testified in front of the high court while they were there, saying they were sorry for what they had done and would not do it again.

The advocate was also instructed not to make a claim for the collection of unpaid costs, and he added that he had no issues if the summoning order against the woman was annulled.

Justice Singh noted that there would be no point in continuing to pursue the case since the parties had already resolved their disagreement.

The police apparatus has been activated as a result of the parties’ acts of commission and omission, and valuable police time that could have been used for other pressing issues has instead been diverted to this case.

Therefore, the parties must contribute to society, he remarked.