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

“Even if an affidavit of the victim accepting the plea is recorded, in cases of serious crimes, especially against women, it is always advisable to ensure the presence of the victim either in person or through video conferencing so that the court can examine in properly if there is a genuine settlement and the victim has no subsisting grievance,” said a bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka.

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

Restoring the criminal case filed against the accused, the trial court sent it back to the High Court with the direction of the victim to remain present before the High Court on the fixed date.

“After hearing the appellant (victim), the High Court would be within its power to order a judicial officer to conduct an inquiry into the manner in which the affidavits were executed and into the question whether the appellant’s thumb prints have were taken on affidavits without explaining to him the content of the affidavits,” it says.

The order came on the heels of an appeal filed by a rape victim challenging a Gujarat High Court order quashing the case based on 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 order.

Noting that the victim was an illiterate woman and the affidavits bore the thumb prints identified by her brother, the high court said that the affidavit did not contain the admonition that the contents of the affidavits were explained to the illiterate person, stating the same thing and that the High Court should have verified its content by personally interacting with the victim.

“When petitions are filed before the HC invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, for quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses on the ground of settlement, the HC must satisfy itself that there is a genuine understanding between victim and accused,” the Bench said in an order earlier this month.

“Without the Court being satisfied of the existence of a genuine settlement, the annulment application cannot proceed. If the Court is satisfied that there is a genuine understanding, the other question to be considered is whether in the facts of the case the power of quashing merits exercise,” he added.

The rape victim contested the regulation

• The order came on an appeal by the rape victim challenging the Gujarat HC’s order quashing the case on the basis of an alleged settlement.
• Denying any settlement and the affidavit produced by the accused, the victim challenged the HC order.
• Restoring the criminal case filed against the defendant, the Supreme Court sent it back to the Supreme Court with the direction of the victim to remain present at the High Court on the appointed date.