[Opinion] Protector of Marriage or Law?

“The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.” [1]

In a recent judgment[2], the Delhi High Court exercising its powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), quashed a first information report (“FIR”) in a rape case. The court based its judgment on the fact that the accused, a doctor, and the victim, a lawyer, were in love and had even married each other. Interestingly, moreover, problematically, the court relied on a co-ordinate bench’s decision[3] that had quashed an FIR concerning the rape of a minor. Similarly, in that case, the court had reasoned that the parties were in love, and quashing was necessary to save the marriage. The decisions of both the benches are violative of the notion of justice and in contravention with the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Section 482 of the CrPC empowers a High Court to pass orders to prevent abuse of process or secure ‘ends of justice’. The section is extensive and has an overriding effect on other provisions of the code. The question herein is not of the powers of the High Court but the correct usage of that power. By allowing parties to settle criminal matters via settlement deeds and compromises, the court is actively participating in the encouragement of criminals. Such decisions not only set a wrong precedent that will be cited in every similarly placed criminal case, but they also discourage victims from pursuing justice. The accused will be incentivised to force a compromise with their victims; the situation will be worse in cases wherein there lies an imbalance of power between parties.

The Supreme Court, in multiple cases, has directed against and even reprimanded lower courts for allowing the settlement of non-compoundable cases. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of reduction of sentence in Shimbhu v State of Haryana [4] held that long pendency of the criminal trial or offer of the rapist to marry the victim are no relevant reasons for exercising the discretionary power under the proviso of Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [5]. However, there are instances when the Apex Court has swayed from its settled position. In 2021, Justice Bobde, the then CJI, while staying the arrest of an accused had asked him if he was willing to marry the victim, who was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. This approach of the CJI was widely criticised in the legal and social circles.

It is true that there are instances when the complainant has ended up registering FIRs in haste and later on regretted that decision. But the courts need to keep in mind that the subsequent change of mind of the complainant does not mean that the crime is undone. The act has happened and the courts should ensure delivery of justice instead of a pacific settlement of disputes.