Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has underscored the gravity of suggesting compromises in cases of rape, emphasizing that such actions diminish the severity of the crime. The Court reaffirmed the importance of accountability, punishment, and legal justice over financial settlements in addressing the profound implications of sexual assault cases.

The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “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 as a whole, for which accountability has to be fixed, perpetrators are to be punished and justice is to be delivered to the victims through the judicial process”.

The Bench emphasized that while courts may seek fairness and reconciliation between parties, certain compromises are fundamentally unjust. Allowing such a settlement would trivialize the suffering of the victim and send a dangerous message that rape can be absolved by financial compensation.

A complaint was filed against the accused for rape and blackmail. The victim had befriended the accused on Facebook, where he impersonated a traffic policeman. Allegedly, the accused visited the victim's home, offered her a drink that rendered her unconscious, and then raped her. He threatened to share inappropriate photos on social media if she didn't comply. The accused continued to force himself on the victim, threatening harm to her husband if she resisted. The victim accuses the accused of rape, blackmail, and threats against herself and her family, seeking legal action.

Advocate S.S. Hooda representing the Accused contended that the relationship between the victim and accused was consensual, presenting a Settlement Agreement where the victim agrees to drop charges. On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar argued that the allegations are serious and the victim's previous statements support the case against the petitioner.

The Court noted that the FIRs for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can sometimes be quashed based on compromise. Such intervention may also occur in cases where the prosecution stems from matrimonial disputes. However, Courts must thoroughly examine all aspects, including FIR contents, victim statements, trial testimony, and settlement terms, to ensure justice.

The Bench observed that the case initially involved serious allegations of rape, blackmail, and threats against the accused. The victim consistently supported the prosecution's case in various proceedings, including giving statements under Section 164 of CrPC and testifying in court. Charges were framed against the accused, and the trial commenced. However, during the trial, the victim expressed a desire to settle the matter, leading to a compromise between the accused and the victim.

Furthermore, the Court examined the settlement agreement that stipulates a payment of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the victim in exchange for quashing the FIR. This proposition, essentially trading money for the closure of criminal proceedings for rape, is not only morally reprehensible but also undermines the integrity of our justice system, the Bench underscored.

“Conversely, if the accused is offering money to the victim, it may also imply an acknowledgment of guilt on his part, which contradicts the assertion of a consensual relationship”, the Court observed. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that rape is a grave violation of a woman's autonomy and stands as an offence against society.

Moreover, the Settlement Agreement's assertion of a consensual relationship between the accused and the victim contradicts the need for monetary compensation. The Bench held, “the potential manipulation or coercion of the victim into accepting the settlement, particularly in light of the serious nature of the allegations involved in the case, cannot also be ruled out”. Additionally, the reliance on a precedent where the trial had not commenced differs significantly from the present case where the trial is underway, and the victim has already testified against the accused.

The Court noted that suggestion of a monetary settlement in a case involving serious offences like those under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC is concerning. The judiciary's role in upholding justice, especially in cases of sexual assault, is paramount, and compromising such cases undermines this principle. Crimes like rape cannot be resolved through monetary settlements; they require accountability and justice through the judicial process. “The victim, as a key witness, deserves to be treated with compassion and respect, and her testimony has to be given due weight and consideration. Any suggestion of compromise with the accused, particularly coming from the learned Trial Court itself, would run counter to the very basic principles of our justice system and fair trial”, the Court added.

The Bench reiterated that criminal proceedings stemming from serious offences like rape cannot be quashed solely based on a settlement agreement between the accused and the victim. Such cases can only be quashed under extraordinary circumstances where the continuation of proceedings would result in an abuse of the legal process or a miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the victim made serious allegations of sexual assault against the accused, supported by her statements under Section 164 of the CrPC and testimony before the Trial Court. The allegations include establishing physical relations without consent, blackmail, and threats against the victim's family. The suggestion of a compromise by the Trial Court, if true, is concerning and reflects a need for sensitivity and awareness among judicial officers. However, the petitioners' request for quashing based on the settlement cannot be granted.

The Court held that the Settlement Agreement lacked clarity on the reasons for the compromise, beyond the victim's agreement prompted by the Trial Court and the accused's willingness to pay a sum of money. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition seeking to quash the FIR.

Case Title: Virender Chahal @ Virender vs. State And Anr. (2024:DHC:1903)