Quashing Sexual Violence Cases Based On Monetary Payments Would Imply 'Justice Is For Sale': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed 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.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting a plea moved by a rape accused seeking quashing of an FIR registered by a woman on the ground that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and that she agreed to settle her claims for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.

The woman, who was divorced and had a child, alleged that the accused had misrepresented himself as divorced and engaged in sexual violence and a sexual relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage.

The court noted that despite serious allegations of extreme sexual violence and threats, the prosecutrix stated that the FIR was lodged out of anger and that she wished that the case be quashed following intervention by their families.

It further noted that the MOU entered into by the parties was 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,” the court said.

Justice Sharma said that the case did not merit the quashing of the FIR but necessitated a trial to determine whether the accused committed the offences or whether the complainant lodged a false complaint and then sought to settle the case 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,” the court said.

It added: “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.”

Title: RAKESH YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 737

Click Here To Read Order