In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has firmly rejected the quashing of a rape FIR based on a monetary settlement between the accused and the complainant, emphasizing that such actions undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. The case, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, involved serious allegations of sexual violence and threats.
Background of the Case
The case, identified as Rakesh Yadav & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Case No. 648/2020), was brought before the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi, for offenses under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offenses), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around whether an FIR for a serious offense such as rape could be quashed based on a compromise reached between the parties, particularly when the settlement involved a financial transaction. The petitioners argued that the complainant had agreed to settle her claims for Rs. 1.5 lakhs, down from an initial claim of Rs. 12 lakhs, due to the financial condition of the accused. They contended that the FIR was lodged out of anger and that the parties had since reconciled.
Court’s Decision
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, after hearing arguments from both sides, unequivocally refused to quash the FIR. The court highlighted the gravity of the allegations, noting that the complainant had initially supported the prosecution’s case with statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that crimes such as rape are offenses against society at large and cannot be trivialized through monetary settlements.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl) 426) and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine 315), which outline the limited circumstances under which FIRs can be quashed. Justice Sharma observed:
“The offence under Section 376 is a serious crime against society at large. If the prosecutrix has made false allegations and lodged a false FIR, she must face the consequences if proven. Therefore, this case does not merit the quashing of the FIR but necessitates a trial to determine whether the accused committed the offences or whether the complainant lodged a false complaint and now seeks to settle by accepting Rs. 1.5 lakhs.”
The court further stated:
“Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for the offense of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.”
Important Observations
Justice Sharma underscored that allowing such settlements would send a dangerous message that justice can be bought, thereby undermining the deterrent effect of criminal law. The court noted:
“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 offense that heinous act of rape can be absolved by paying money to the victim, a notion that is as repugnant as it is repulsive.”
Also Read
The case was argued by Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, with Advocates Jasir Aftab and Md Hedayatullah representing the State. The judgment, delivered on July 1, 2024, has been uploaded on the Delhi High Court’s website for public access.
