Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Judge's Conduct For Suggesting Accused & Victim Settle Rape Case, Orders Trial By Another Judge

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the conduct of a trial court judge here who “suggested and assisted” the accused and victim to settle a rape case during recording of prosecution evidence.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the case be tried by another judge, to ensure that justice should not only be done but also seem to be done.

The court observed that the very notion of suggesting a compromise in such a case reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding”of the nature and gravity of offenses like rape.

It added that these are not matters that can be resolved through payment of money or out-of-court settlements but are crimes committed against the individual as well as society as a whole, for which accountability has to be fixed, perpetrators are to be punished and justice is to be delivered to the victims through the judicial process.

Observing that it is incumbent upon the judiciary to uphold the dignity and rights of victims of sexual assault, the court said:

“Therefore, this Court expresses concern over the conduct of the learned Trial Court Judge, if it is true, that the Trial Judge had suggested and assisted the accused and the victim, in a case under Section 376 of IPC, to settle the matter, while the same Court was recording the prosecution evidence.”

It added: “Thus, this Court is unable to comprehend as to why the learned Trial Court Judge would have asked the victim to settle the matter with the accused, which involves offenses of heinous nature such as Section 376 and 377 of IPC.”

The court dismissed the plea moved by the accused seeking quashing of the rape case registered by the victim in 2020, on the ground that the matter was settled and compromised between the parties.

It was the accused's case that he was falsely implicated by the victim with whom he was in a consensual relationship for a very long period of time. He contended that before the trial court, the victim had agreed to settle the matter after which the parties arrived at a compromise.

As per the Settlement Agreement, the accused had agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000 to the victim and she had admitted that whatever happened between her and him was out of her free will and that they were in a consensual relationship.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Sharma noted that there were specific allegations in the victim's testimony regarding the accused intoxicating her at her home and then establishing physical relations with her without her consent.

Perusing the settlement agreement, the court said: “Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for the offense of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.”

It observed that while 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.

“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 offense that heinous act of rape can be absolved by paying money to the victim, a notion that is as repugnant as it is repulsive,” the court said.

It added that the Settlement Agreement did not reflect why the parties had settled the case, except the fact that the victim had agreed to settle the case upon being asked by the Trial Court Judge and that the accused was willing to pay Rs. 3.5 lakhs to her in exchange for his exoneration.

Accordingly, the court refused to quash the FIR with a direction that the judgment be circulated to all the judges of district courts.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Hooda and Ms. Rashmi Rawat, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State

Title: VIRENDER CHAHAL @ VIRENDER v. STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274

Click Here To Read Order