Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court

Exchanging Money for Quietus to Rape Proceedings Is Immoral and Strikes at Core of Justice System: Delhi High Court

03 November 2024 1:13 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR in a rape case, underscoring the gravity of the allegations and the impermissibility of settling such matters through monetary compensation. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in her judgment, emphasized that allowing the quashing of an FIR based on a financial settlement would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The case involves petitioner Rakesh Yadav, who sought to quash an FIR registered against him at Mehrauli Police Station in Delhi for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 377, 323, 509, 34, and 380 of the IPC. The prosecutrix, a single mother, alleged that she met the petitioner on a social media platform where he misrepresented himself as a divorced man. She accused him of spiking her drink and sexually assaulting her multiple times under the false promise of marriage, and of subsequently blackmailing her with intimate photographs. The prosecutrix also alleged that the petitioner stole Rs. 2,20,000 from her and continuously threatened her and her child.

Justice Sharma noted the severity of the allegations, which included repeated incidents of sexual violence, deception, and threats. "The allegations made in the FIR reveal 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 court observed .

The court extensively discussed the principles governing the quashing of FIRs, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like rape. Referencing the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, Justice Sharma emphasized that criminal proceedings involving grave offences should not be quashed merely based on a compromise between the parties .

"The offence under Section 376 is a serious crime against society at large," the court stated, underscoring that such cases require thorough investigation and trial to uphold justice .

In a significant observation, Justice Sharma stated, "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" . She further noted, "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" .
The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the petition to quash the FIR reinforces the judiciary's commitment to addressing sexual violence with the seriousness it warrants. By rejecting the compromise based on monetary settlement, the judgment sends a clear message that justice in cases of sexual violence is not negotiable and must be pursued through the proper legal channels. This decision is expected to have significant implications for the handling of similar cases in the future, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained.

Date of Decision: July 1, 2024
Rakesh Yadav & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Latest Legal News