Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of Victim Compensation In Sexual Offence Cases

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the State of GNCT of Delhi challenging an order of discharge passed in favour of the accused persons in a case involving allegations of sexual assault.

While affirming the discharge, the Court expressed serious concern over a recurring pattern in which victims receive interim compensation after the registration of FIRs but later recant their allegations, without any effective mechanism being invoked for the recovery of the compensation already disbursed.

A Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while noting that “after the registration of an FIR, the victim applies for and is granted interim compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme ...however, at a later stage, the victim may resile from her allegations, enter into a compromise, or seek quashing of the FIR or proceedings ...in such situations, it is often found that the interim compensation already disbursed is neither returned by such a victim nor is any effective mechanism set in motion by the concerned Legal Services Authority to seek recovery of the same”, held that “the effective implementation of these recovery provisions is essential to preserve the integrity of victim compensation frameworks.”

Background

An FIR was registered at a Police Station on the complaint of the prosecutrix, alleging that the accused had taken her to a flat on the pretext of arranging employment and subjected her to sexual assault along with the co-accused.

During the investigation, the prosecutrix reiterated the allegations before the medical officer. However, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she completely resiled from her earlier version and stated that the physical relationship was consensual and that no offence had been committed.

Based on the Section 164 statement and the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix, the Trial Court discharged the accused persons. Aggrieved, the State preferred the present revision petition.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court first examined the legality of the discharge and reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court must assess whether the material on record gives rise to a strong or grave suspicion against the accused. It was observed that while contradictions alone are not decisive, a voluntary and categorical exculpatory statement by the prosecutrix strikes at the root of the prosecution's case.

In the case at hand, the Court found that the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was unequivocal, voluntary, and exonerated the accused. She had also affirmed before the Trial Court that the statement reflected the true version of events. In such circumstances, the Court held that no grave suspicion survived to justify the framing of charges.

The Court thereafter addressed a broader concern raised by the State regarding victim compensation. It noted that in several cases, victims apply for and receive interim compensation soon after registration of FIRs in sexual offence matters, but later withdraw allegations, enter into compromises, or seek quashing of proceedings. In such cases, interim compensation already disbursed is neither returned nor recovered.

The Court found merit in this concern and observed that victim compensation schemes are intended to provide immediate assistance to victims who have suffered serious harm and trauma, including medical, psychological, and social support. At the same time, the grant of compensation necessarily proceeds on the assumption that the claim is made in good faith.

Referring to the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, the Court noted that the scheme expressly provides for recovery of compensation in appropriate cases. It analysed Clause 13 of the Scheme and the Standard Operating Procedure framed by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, which contemplate recovery where allegations are found to be false, where no offence is made out, or where the victim turns hostile or withdraws allegations after receiving compensation.

The Court emphasised that effective implementation of these recovery provisions, stating: “If interim compensation disbursed in cases where allegations are subsequently withdrawn or found to be false is routinely allowed to remain unrecovered, it may not only result in misuse of public funds but may also dilute the credibility and sustainability of schemes meant to support genuine victims of sexual violence. The continued public faith and confidence in such welfare measures depends upon their careful, fair, and even-handed administration”.

In view of the above, the High Court directed that Trial Courts shall forward copies of relevant orders and records to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority in sexual offence cases where compensation has been awarded, and the FIR or proceedings are quashed based on settlement or compromise, or where the victim turns hostile or exonerates the accused during trial.

Further, in all petitions seeking quashing of FIRs or criminal proceedings in sexual offence cases on the basis of compromise or settlement, it shall be mandatory to disclose whether the victim has received any compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme, along with relevant particulars.

Conclusion

On the merits of the case, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the order of discharge passed by the Trial Court and declined to interfere with it. The petition was accordingly disposed of, and a copy of the Judgment was directed to be forwarded to the DLSA and all Judicial Officers in Delhi.

Cause Title: The State of GNCT of Delhi v. Toshib @ Paritosh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11337)

Appearances

Petitioner: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State

Respondents: Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment