Delhi HC Expresses Concern Over Conduct Of Trial Court Judge Who Suggested Accused & Victim To Settle Rape Case
The Delhi High Court expressed concern over the conduct of the Trial Court Judge who suggested and assisted the accused and victim to settle a rape case.
The Court said 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.
The accused had filed a petition seeking quashing of FIR registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all consequential proceedings on the ground that the matter was settled and compromised between the parties.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “… 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. … this Court expresses concern over the conduct of the learned Trial Court Judge, if it is true, that the Trial Judge had suggested and assisted the accused and the victim, in a case under Section 376 of IPC, to settle the matter, while the same Court was recording the prosecution evidence.”
The Bench added that whether the relationship was consensual or non-consensual is a matter of trial and in case it would have been found at a later stage that the victim had levelled false allegations against the accused, the Court was at liberty to take appropriate action against her.
Advocate S.S. Hooda represented the petitioner while APP Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
In 2020, a complaint was received by the police against the accused (petitioner) regarding commission of rape and blackmailing the victim by extending threats of making her photographs viral on social media. The victim had mentioned in her complaint that her husband used to remain out of station most of the time and she had befriended the accused on Facebook, who had impersonated himself as a traffic policeman, bachelor, and deployed on duty in Delhi. The victim had sent a message to him and thereafter, she had also disclosed her address to him. As alleged, he visited her when her husband had gone out and brought some snacks and cold drinks.
The accused asked the victim to bring a glass and poured the cold drink into that glass and offered it to her. The victim became unconscious immediately after drinking the cold drink and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in bed without any clothes. The accused was also sitting on the bed and showed her some nude photos and threatened to upload the same on social media in case she did not follow his commands. Thereafter, he committed rape upon her including unnatural sex with her forcibly in a hotel. He kept on committing rape upon her on several occasions. Hence, she finally made a complaint to the police.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “At the threshold of adjudication in the present case lies an important question for consideration: Should this Court invoke its inherent powers to quash an FIR alleging commission of offence of rape, on the ground of matter having been compromised between the accused and the victim? What increases this dilemma is the revelation that the very suggestion to explore such a compromise emanated not from the disputing parties, but from the learned Trial Judge itself.”
The Court further noted that an FIR which has been registered for commission of serious offences, including offence of rape, should not be quashed on the basis of settlement or compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused.
“… as informed to this Court and as mentioned in the settlement agreement, the learned Trial Judge had asked the victim on 08.12.2023 as to whether she wished to settle the matter with the accused. It was on this query put by the learned Trial Judge, that the accused and the victim had decided to compromise the matter. … Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for offence of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.”, it observed.
The Court said that the offence of rape is a heinous violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy and it stands as an offence against the society. It added that 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.
“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. … 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 is 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”, it also observed.
The Court emphasised that 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.
“… this Court is concerned that in case, the learned Trial Court Judge had suggested to the victim that she should enter into a compromise with the accused, as stated at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner who was present in the Court at that time and the victim in the interaction with this Court, for a certain sum of money, which if true, is not acceptable and the Trial Courts need to be sensitized in this regard”, it remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and ordered that the case be tried by another judge.
Cause Title- Virender Chahal @ Virender v. State and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1903)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates S.S. Hooda and Rashmi Rawat.
Respondents: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, SI Mukesh Kumar, and P.S. Vasant Kunj (North).
