It is extremely delighting to note that while not lagging behind in taking the bull by the horns, we see that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Rakesh Yadav & Ors vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr in Crl.M.C. 4677/2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:4835 that was reserved on 30.05.2024 and was then finally pronounced on 01.07.2024 minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms that cases related to allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed based on monetary payments, because doing this would imply that justice is for sale. We must note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said most unequivocally that:
…this Court is of the opinion that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments, as doing so would imply that justice is for sale. It was also pointed out by the Bench that the first information report (FIR) in question highlights issues of self-respect, life and death for the prosecutrix and her child, and contains her assertions that she possesses evidence of the threat and other allegations.

It would be imperative to note that the Delhi High Court made the observations while refusing to quash an FIR that was registered under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged that the woman in question was sexually assaulted by a man four times. The accused and the victim had met on social media.

It also noted that the accused had misrepresented himself as being divorced and had engaged in sexual violence with the woman under the false pretext of marriage. Later, we see here that the two settled and agreed to quash the case on payment of Rs 12 lakh. We then see further that considering the financial condition of the accused, the amount that was finally agreed was Rs 1.5 lakh.

It is in the fitness of things that the Delhi High Court after considering and perusing the case in detail minced just no words to say that an FIR in a serious case like this cannot be quashed. The Bench said most unambiguously that:
This Court is of the opinion that justice in a criminal trial, particularly in a case such as the present one, serves not only as a serious example and deterrent to the accused but also as a lesson to the community as a whole. Neither the accused nor the complainant can be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse State and judicial resources to serve their own ends. Therefore, even if the parties have reached a compromise, they cannot demand the quashing of an FIR as a matter of right. The Bench also further very rightly added that the Trial Court must decide the case on its merits and examine the facts in light of natural justice for both the complainant and the accused, keeping in mind the broader implications for the community and the criminal justice system. No denying it. Of course, such heinous cases of crime like rape should never be allowed to be compromised under any circumstances and the accused if found guilty must be made to face the most strictest punishment as is permissible under the new penal laws in our country!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR bearing No. 648/2020, registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 376/377/323/509/34/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

As we see, the Bench discloses in para 3 that:
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 herein has amicably settled the matter vide MoU dated 06.04.2024 executed between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2. It is further stated that as per the MoU, the complainant/respondent no. 2 has agreed to settle her claims for Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Although, the total claim was for Rs. 12 lakhs. But considering the financial condition of the petitioner, the complainant is ready to settle for Rs. 1.5 lakhs. It is further submitted that the present FIR had been lodged in this case since the prosecutrix was angry. Thus, the present FIR be quashed.

On the contrary, the Bench then further discloses in para 4 that:
Learned APP for the State, on the other hand argues that this is not a fit case for quashing of the FIR, as the complainant at the time of lodging of the complaint had leveled several serious allegations against the present accused/applicant and the settlement agreement (MoU) in this case clearly reveals that the accused is paying money to the victim to get the FIR quashed if quashing is allowed on the grounds that the prosecutrix had lodged the complaint out of anger towards the accused, it would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of the criminal justice system.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 11 that:
This Court observes that the present case reveals continuous incidents of extreme sexual violence and the fact that the accused had misrepresented himself as divorced and had engaged in sexual violence and a sexual relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage. The FIR specifically alleges not only sexual violence but also the creation of inappropriate videos and photos of their relationship and threats to kill her and her son, and repeated misrepresentation by the accused.

Most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench expounds in para 13 mandating that:
This Court has considered the fact that the FIR itself reveals serious allegations against petitioner no.1 and his family members, including consistent threats to the prosecutrix to prevent her from lodging a complaint. The Court also notes that the MOU entered into by the parties is not the result of a resolution of misunderstandings through family intervention but rather an exchange of money amounting to Rs. 12 lakhs, intended to secure the quashing of the FIR. However, this Court is of the opinion that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments, as doing so would imply that justice is for sale.

While citing the relevant case law, the Bench points out in para 14 that:
This Court in CRL.M.C. bearing No. 753/2024 titled as ‘Virender Chahal @ Virender’ has expressed its opinion on settlements based on monetary payments in cases relates to offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and the relevant observations are as under:

23. Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for offence of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.

24. In this Court’s opinion, the offence of rape is a heinous violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy and it stands as an offence against the society. While the Courts are often tasked with the responsibility of ensuring fairness and at times, reconciliation between the parties, there are certain areas where compromise is not only inappropriate but also fundamentally unjust.

25. 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 offence that heinous act of rape can be absolved by paying money to the victim, a notion that is as repugnant as it is repulsive…

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 15 that:
In the present case, the FIR highlights issues of self-respect, life and death for the prosecutrix and her child, and contains her assertions that she possesses evidence of the threats and other allegations. On the other hand, the parties are seeking to settle the matter through a payment of Rs. 12 lakhs. Furthermore, there is no evidence produced before this Court that Rs. 12 lakhs were actually paid to the prosecutrix, nor was such a payment contended before this Court beyond a reference to some monetary transactions in the FIR.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 16 that:
This Court faces a situation where the accused seeks to pay Rs. 12 lakhs, and the prosecutrix seeks to accept it to quash an FIR filled with grave allegations of sexual violence and threats. In these circumstances, this Court concludes that the present case does not fall within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing an FIR. The offence under Section 376 is a serious crime against society at large.

Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 17 that:
Further, 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. This Court is of the opinion that true justice and the ends of justice will be served not by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant.

Most forthrightly, the Bench postulates in para 18 mandating that:
This Court is of the opinion that justice in a criminal trial, particularly in a case such as the present one, serves not only as a serious example and deterrent to the accused but also as a lesson to the community as a whole. Neither the accused nor the complainant can be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse State and judicial resources to serve their own ends. Therefore, even if the parties have reached a compromise, they cannot demand the quashing of an FIR as a matter of right. The learned Trial Court must decide the case on its merits, examining the facts in light of natural justice for both the complainant and the accused, as well as considering the broader implications for the community and the criminal justice system. Every judgment carries its own message, and this one emphasizes that the integrity of the judicial process must be upheld.

As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 19 that:
Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, the present petition stands dismissed.

For clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 20 stating that:
It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

Finally, we see that the Bench then very rightly concludes by holding in para 21 that:
The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh