Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of FIR, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has been settled and compromised between the parties. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., held that the present petition for quashing of FIR, based on compromise, cannot be allowed the Settlement Agreement does not reflect why the parties have settled the case, except the fact that the victim had agreed to settle the case upon being asked by the learned Trial Court Judge and that the accused is willing to pay Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the victim in exchange of his exoneration in the present case.
The case involved an FIR registered under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), pertaining to the offense of rape. The victim, identified as respondent 2, had leveled serious allegations against the accused, the petitioner in this case. The allegations included multiple instances of rape, blackmail, threats, and unnatural sexual intercourse. The victim’s statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before a magistrate, and charges were framed against the accused. The trial had commenced, with the victim providing testimony against the accused. Despite the trial being underway, a settlement agreement was proposed between the victim and the accused. The victim, upon being asked by the Trial Judge, expressed her willingness to settle the matter with the accused. Subsequently, a settlement agreement was entered into, stipulating monetary compensation of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to be paid by the accused to the victim in exchange for quashing the FIR.
Counsel for the petitioner, the accused in the case, relied on the settlement agreement as the basis for quashing the FIR. The petitioner argued that the victim had deposed against him due to a misunderstanding and that the relationship between them was consensual. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent, representing the victim, contended that settling the matter through monetary compensation would trivialize the gravity of the offense of rape. The respondent emphasized the need for fair trial proceedings and expressed concern over the involvement of the trial judge in suggesting a compromise.
The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the settlement agreement and the circumstances surrounding it. It expressed strong reservations about using monetary compensation to settle serious criminal cases, particularly those involving offenses like rape. The Court highlighted the fundamental principles of justice and the need to uphold the dignity and rights of victims of sexual assault. Additionally, the Court scrutinized the role of the Trial Judge in suggesting a compromise, raising concerns about potential biases and the integrity of the trial process. It emphasized the importance of impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings, especially in cases involving heinous offenses like rape.
On the aspect of can monetary consideration become ground for quashing FIR registered under Section 376 of IPC, the Court noted that it is strange that on one hand, the Settlement Agreement mentions that the accused and the victim were in consensual relationship and the victim had deposed against the accused before the police, Magistrate, and Trial Court due to misunderstanding. However, the same is at odds with the fact that the accused was offering to pay a substantial amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the victim, as a part and parcel of compromise arrived at between them. This raises significant doubts and uncertainties about the claims made within the Settlement Agreement. If the victim’s prior statements given to the police, and to the Magistrate and before the Trial Court were indeed based on a misunderstanding arising from a consensual relationship, the need for monetary compensation to settle the matter becomes questionable.
The Court remarked that “the offence of rape is a heinous violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy and it stands as an offence against the society. While the Courts are often tasked with the responsibility of ensuring fairness and at times, reconciliation between the parties, there are certain areas where compromise is not only inappropriate but also fundamentally unjust. 25. To allow a settlement, such as the present one, to crystallize would amount to trivializing the sufferings of a rape victim, and reducing her anguish to a mere transaction. It would amount to giving a message to perpetrators of such offence that heinous act of rape can be absolved by paying money to the victim, a notion that is as repugnant as it is repulsive.”
The Court further remarked that “the very notion of suggesting a compromise in a case such as the present one reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and gravity of offences like rape. These are not matters which can be resolved through payment of money or out-of-court settlements; they are crimes committed against the individual as well as society, for which accountability must be fixed, perpetrators are to be punished and justice is to be delivered to the victims through the judicial process. It goes without saying that it is incumbent upon the judiciary to uphold the dignity and rights of victims of sexual assault, to ensure that they are afforded full protection of the law.”
After careful consideration of the facts, submissions, and legal precedents, the Court held that the petition to quash the FIR based on the settlement agreement could not be allowed. It underscored the significance of conducting fair trial proceedings and ensuring justice for victims of sexual assault. Furthermore, the court ordered the case to be tried by a different judge to prevent any perception of bias or impropriety.
[Virender Chahal v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1630, decided on 07-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. S.S. Hooda and Ms. Rashmi Rawat, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Mukesh Kumar, P.S. Vasant Kunj (North).
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
