Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, held that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence could not be dismissed on the basis of monetary settlements, as such actions would imply that justice is for sale. The court made such observations in a petition seeking to quash an FIR filed for offenses punishable under Sections 376, 377, 323, 509, 34, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments, as doing so would imply that justice is for sale”. 

The petitioner notified the court that he had amicably settled the matter with the prosecutrix via a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Accordingly, it was stated that the prosecutrix had agreed to the settlement for Rs. 1.5 lakhs, despite the total claim being Rs. 12 lakhs. It was further submitted that the FIR was lodged because the prosecutrix was angry, and thus, the FIR should be quashed.

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar argued that this was not a fit case for quashing the FIR, as the complainant had made several serious allegations against the petitioner when complaining. The settlement agreement revealed that the petitioner was paying the prosecutrix to get the FIR quashed. Allowing the quashing on these grounds would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of the criminal justice system.

Advocate Shasak Jain, representing the petitioner argued that the FIR had been lodged because the prosecutrix was angry with the petitioner, and they had a consensual relationship. He contended that the parties had reached a compromise, and the prosecutrix did not wish to pursue the case further. Additionally, he argued that since both parties had no objection to quashing the FIR, the Court should proceed to quash it.

The court framed the following issue: “Whether the FIR registered for an offense punishable under Section 376 of the IPC can be quashed as a matter of right based on a compromise reached between the parties”. 

The court noted that the prosecutrix in the case alleged that she, a single mother, had met the petitioner on a social media website, where he introduced himself as a divorced man living with his uncle. It was alleged that the petitioner began visiting her frequently and even attended her son’s birthday party. 

The court further noted the allegations that one day, when the prosecutrix’s son was not at home, the petitioner, aware of this fact, visited her residence under the influence of alcohol, bringing half a bottle of alcohol and a bottle of breezer, knowing the prosecutrix preferred breezer due to its lower alcohol content. The prosecutrix claimed in her complaint that while she was consuming the breezer, the petitioner began touching her inappropriately. Although she asked him to leave and return another day, he insisted on staying longer. As she continued drinking, the petitioner allegedly spiked her drink, causing her to lose consciousness. 

The court noted the prosecutrix's statement that she was semi-conscious but lacked the strength to resist as the petitioner allegedly sexually assaulted her four times. Subsequently, the petitioner professed his love for her, promised to marry her, and apologized for his conduct, assuring her that he would not engage in sexual relations with her again without her consent. 

The court further noted the allegations of the prosecutrix that the petitioner took intimate photographs of her and continued sexually assaulting her under the pretext of marriage. She also alleged that he made her meet his mother during the festival of Karwa Chauth, but on the same day, he and his mother beat her when she refused to give them money. Later, she was informed by one of the petitioner’s friends that he was already married. When she confronted him, she discovered that he was not divorced and his wife was living with him. 

“Despite these serious allegations of extreme sexual violence and threats, the prosecutrix who was present before the Court on the date of hearing, had stated that the present FIR was lodged out of anger. She further explained that, following intervention by their families, she wishes to have the FIR quashed”, the court observed. 

This Court considered that the FIR itself revealed serious allegations against petitioner No. 1 and his family members, including consistent threats to the prosecutrix to prevent her from lodging a complaint. The Court also noted that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into by the parties was not the result of a resolution of misunderstandings through family intervention but rather an exchange of money amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs, intended to secure the quashing of the FIR. However, this Court opined that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence could not be quashed based on monetary payments, as this would imply that justice is for sale.

In this case, the FIR highlighted issues of self-respect, life, and death for the prosecutrix and her child, and contained her assertions that she possessed evidence of the threats and other allegations. On the other hand, the parties sought to settle the matter through a payment of Rs. 12 lakhs. Furthermore, no evidence was produced before this Court that Rs. 12 lakhs were actually paid to the prosecutrix, nor was such a payment contended before this Court beyond a reference to some monetary transactions in the FIR.

This Court faced a situation where the accused sought to pay Rs. 12 lakhs, and the prosecutrix sought to accept it to quash an FIR filled with grave allegations of sexual violence and threats. In these circumstances, this Court concluded that the present case did not fall within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing an FIR. The offence under Section 376 was a serious crime against the society at large.

Further, the court observed that if the prosecutrix had made false allegations and lodged a false FIR, she must face the consequences if proven. Therefore, the court held that this case did not merit the quashing of the FIR but necessitated a trial to determine whether the accused committed the offences or whether the complainant lodged a false complaint and sought to settle by accepting Rs. 12 lakhs. “​​This Court is of the opinion that true justice and the ends of justice will be served not by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant”, the court remarked. 

The court noted that justice in a criminal trial, particularly in a case such as this one, served not only as a serious example and deterrent to the accused but also as a lesson to the community as a whole. The court opined, “Neither the accused nor the complainant can be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse State and judicial resources to serve their own ends”. 

Therefore, the court held that even if the parties had reached a compromise, they could not demand the quashing of an FIR as a matter of right. “Every judgment carries its own message, and this one emphasizes that the integrity of the judicial process must be upheld”, the court concluded. 

Consequently, the court directed the Trial Court to decide the case on its merits, examining the facts in light of natural justice for both the complainant and the accused, as well as considering the broader implications for the community and the criminal justice system. 

Case Title: Rakesh Yadav & Ors v State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr (2024:DHC:4835)