Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by a victim against the Gujarat High Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings based on an alleged settlement. The case involved serious allegations of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court had quashed the case relying on affidavits purportedly signed by the victim, indicating a settlement with the accused. However, the victim, an illiterate woman, denied entering into any settlement and claimed that the affidavits bearing her thumb impressions had been obtained without her knowledge or understanding of their contents.

Contentions of the Victim

The victim denied any settlement with the accused and contested the validity of the affidavits presented in the High Court. She argued that as an illiterate woman, the contents of the affidavits had not been explained to her before obtaining her thumb impressions. She contended that the Gujarat High Court failed to verify the authenticity of the settlement and her consent by not interacting with her directly, either in person or virtually. This, she claimed, violated her rights and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

Contentions of the Accused

The accused claimed that the dispute had been amicably resolved and submitted affidavits as proof of the settlement. He argued that the victim had voluntarily agreed to the settlement and that the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Article 226 of the Constitution. The accused maintained that there was no coercion or fraud in obtaining the settlement.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of verifying the genuineness of settlements in cases involving serious offenses, particularly those against women. It noted that High Courts must ensure that the settlement is voluntary and not coerced. The Court emphasized that even when affidavits are filed, the victim’s presence—either physical or virtual—should be ensured to confirm her consent and understanding. In cases where illiterate victims are involved, it is imperative to confirm that the contents of the affidavits have been explained to them, especially if the affidavits lack an endorsement to this effect. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s failure to verify the authenticity of the settlement and its reliance on unverified affidavits to be a serious procedural lapse.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order quashing the criminal proceedings and restored the case. It directed the High Court to ensure the victim’s presence during the next hearing to verify her stance regarding the settlement. The High Court was instructed to allow the victim to explain her position and, if necessary, order a judicial inquiry into the manner in which the affidavits were executed. The Supreme Court clarified that if the High Court finds the settlement to be genuine, it may then decide whether to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 to quash the proceedings. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Key Guidelines for High Courts

The Supreme Court provided critical guidelines for High Courts to follow while handling cases involving settlements in serious offenses. It emphasized that the victim’s presence should always be ensured to confirm the settlement’s genuineness, especially in cases involving serious crimes or offenses against women. Judicial scrutiny must ensure that settlements are voluntary, and procedural safeguards must be observed to protect the victim’s rights and prevent misuse of the legal process.

Credits: