NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said the High Courts must be completely satisfied with the existence of a genuine settlement between the victim and the accused, before entertaining a plea for quashing the criminal proceedings related to rape and other non-compoundable offences.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said without the court being satisfied with the existence of a genuine settlement, the petition for quashing cannot proceed further. The bench opined if the court is satisfied with 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.
SC Emphasizes Vigilance in Cases of Serious Offences Against Women
Dealing with a woman's plea, the court noted, “The offences alleged were very serious. The offences alleged were under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC and the Atrocities Act, the High Court must satisfy itself that there is a genuine settlement between the victim and the accused."
The bench also said 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.
Role of High Courts in Verifying Settlement Affidavits Explained by Apex Court
In an order passed on November 5, the court allowed a plea by a woman rape victim against the Gujarat High Court's order of September 29, 2023, which quashed the proceedings against the accused, who was also his employer.
The counsel, representing the woman, contended that she was illiterate and thumb impressions had been taken on the typed affidavits in suspicious circumstances without explaining the contents to her.
The High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings lodged by her against her employer for offences under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The High Court passed the order on a plea made by the accused based on a settlement and payment of Rs 3 lakhs to the woman's husband. The apex court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the High Court. The bench said the High Court’s judgment and order on quashing the proceedings cannot be sustained.
The court said when illiterate persons affirm such affidavits by putting their thumb impressions, usually, the affidavit must bear an endorsement that the contents of the affidavits were explained to the person affirming the same.
The bench, after noticing that the endorsement was absent, said the High Court ought to have directed the appellant to personally remain present before the court.
It also felt the High Court should have verified whether the appellant had put her thumb impressions on the affidavits after she was informed about the contents of the affidavit and after she had fully understood the contents of the affidavit.
The court said that two affidavits were executed on the same day, which should have been one more reason for the High Court to be very cautious before acting upon the affidavits.
Remanding the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, the bench said 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.
