Supreme Court cautions HCs against quashing serious offences against women based on settlements

Cautioning high courts against quashing serious offences against women based on settlements between the victim and the accused without verifying the genuineness of such settlements, the Supreme court has set aside a Gujarat High Court order for such a settlement in a rape case.

“Even if an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement is on record, in cases of serious offences and especially against women, it is always advisable to procure the presence of the victim either personally or through video conference so that the Court can properly examine whether there is a genuine settlement and that the victim has no subsisting grievance,” a Bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka said.

“As the (Gujarat) High Court has passed the impugned judgment and order without verifying whether there was a genuine settlement between the appellant and the second respondent, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained,” said the Bench which also included Justice Augustine George Masih.

Restoring the criminal case against the accused, top court remanded it back to the high court with a direction to the victim to remain present before the High Court on the date fixed.

“After hearing the appellant (victim), the High Court would be well within its powers to order an inquiry to be held by a Judicial Officer about the manner in which the affidavits have been executed and on the question of whether the thumb impressions of the appellant were taken on the affidavits without explaining to her the contents of the affidavits,” it said.

The order came on an appeal filed by a rape victim challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court quashing the case on the basis of an alleged settlement. The accused also faced charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Denying any settlement and the affidavit produced by the accused, the victim challenged the high court’s order.

Noting that the victim was an illiterate woman and the affidavits bore her thumb impressions, identified by her brother, the top court said the affidavit did not contain the endorsement that the contents of the affidavits were explained to the illiterate person affirming the same and that the high court should have verified its contents by personally interacting with the victim.

“When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') for quashing criminal proceedings of non-compoundable offences on the ground of settlement, the High Court must satisfy itself that there is a genuine settlement between the victim and the accused,” the Bench said.

“Without the Court being satisfied with the existence of a genuine settlement, the petition for quashing cannot proceed further. If the Court is satisfied about the existence of a genuine settlement, the other question to be considered is whether in the facts of the case, the power of quashing deserves to be exercised,” it added.