Supreme Court warns HCs to crack down on serious crimes against women based on settlements

Warning high courts not to quash serious crimes committed against women based on agreement between the victim and the accused without verifying the genuineness of such agreements, the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court order regarding such compromise in a rape case.

“Even if the affidavit of the victim accepting the agreement is recorded, it is always advisable, especially in the case of serious crimes against women, to ensure the presence of the victim in person or through video conferencing for proper consideration by the Court. A bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka said there was genuine resolution and the victim had no outstanding complaint.

“Since the (Gujarat) High Court passed the impugned judgment and order without verifying whether there was genuine agreement between the appellant and the second respondent, the impugned judgment and order are not maintainable,” the bench, which also included Justice Augustine George, said. Masih.

The apex court, which restarted the criminal case against the accused, sent the case back to the high court, directing the victim to appear before the Supreme Court on the appointed date.

“After hearing the appellant (victim), the High Court has the power to order an inquiry by a Judicial Officer into how the affidavits were executed and whether there were thumb impressions. “The appellant was taken on affidavits without the contents of the affidavits being explained to him,” he said.

The decision came after a rape victim challenged the Gujarat High Court’s order quashing the case based on the alleged compromise. The accused also faced charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Rejecting any compromise and the statement submitted by the accused, the victim challenged the high court’s order.

Noting that the victim was an illiterate woman and that the affidavits bore her thumb prints which were identified by her brother, the high court held that the affidavit did not contain an acknowledgment that the contents of the affidavits were disclosed to the illiterate person confirming the same and the high court personally contacted the victim to find out the contents. should have verified it.

“When petitions are filed before the Supreme Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing of criminal investigations in respect of non-composite offences, the Supreme Court on the ground of conciliation shall decide between the victim and the accused. “He must satisfy himself that there is a real compromise,” he said.

“Unless the court is satisfied that a real solution exists, the annulment petition cannot proceed any further. “If the court is satisfied that a genuine solution exists, the other question to be considered is whether, on the facts of the case, it merits the exercise of the power to quash,” he added.