Rape Case Can't Be Quashed Solely On 'Settlement' Between Victim & Accused : Supreme Court
The Court also noted that the victim in the instant case was coerced into a settlement.
The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a rape case on the basis of a compromise between the parties, stating that it could not approve quashing a case involving serious offences on a mere settlement.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held so while also granting anticipatory bail to the accused and directing that the trial be proceeded. It also expressed concern about the false complaints made on the lure of financial settlements, and about settlements obtained through coercion.
The petitioner had sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 64(1), 33(2) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/SCT Act).
Perusing its earlier order, the bench observed that Senior Advocate Warisha Farasat, appearing for the petitioner, had informed the Court that the matter had been compromised and that an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) had been disposed of by the High Court, accepting the compromise exercising its inherent powers.
On this, the Court expressed discomfort saying “considering the seriousness of the offence, we were slightly perturbed.” It went on to examine the decisions relied on by the High Court, and noted that Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anita Maria Dias and Anr v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. cautioned that the inherent power to quash a case is not to be exercised in cases involving “heinous and serious offences indicating mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. which cannot be termed provate in nature.”
It also noted that the bench in Gian Singh v State of Punjab had held that, when parties settle, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 528 of BNSS) could be invoked unless the offences are heinous and serious, such as mental depravity, murder, rape or dacoity, or and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. With regards to Shambhu Kharwar v State of UP, the Court noted that the case was quashed because the allegations themselves showed the relationship was consensual.
The Court granted the anticipatory bail, but added as follows:
“However, quashing of a case under Section 482 relying solely on a compromise, especially when it is a non-compundable offence, would be stepping outside the jurisdiction under the Section 482 that too in violation of the power conferred under Section 320. We are not only concerned with the settlements which could be arrived at on coercion by the accused but also apprehensive of the multiplicity of such false complaints being made, with the lure of a future settlement being arrived at.”
The bench said it was not prima facie satisfied that the cases cited by the High Court would enable it to quash the complaint on a compromise where a heinous offences of rape is alleged and thus called for the records of the case from the High Court.
Further, the bench interacted with the victim from the office of the District Legal Services Authority, in the presence of the Secretary, and recorded that “the victim in the same breath says that she was coerced into the settlement, that she is not ready for a settlement and that she requires money for settlement. She categorically stated that she made a complaint and stated the truth therein.” Further, the bench clarified that the truth of the allegations will have to be examined at trial and that it was unable to express any opinion on them.
The Court reiterated its caution about both false accusations raised on the lure of a financial settlement and settlements motivated by coercion:
“We have already stated the law on the point insofar as quashing a case involving serious offences on mere settlement; which we cannot approve. We have distinguished the decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge.”
In the light of aforesaid, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the trial to proceed, while also granting him anticipatory bail with conditions.
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Ms Warisha Farasat, Sr Adv.; Ms Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR; Ms. Fozia Rahman, Adv.; Mr. Sikander A. Siddiqui, Adv.M; r. Kausubh Chauturvedi, Adv.; Ms. Aafreen, Adv.
For Respondents: Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR