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 for the court to ensure the presence of the victim in person or through video conferencing, especially in cases of serious crimes against women; so that the court can properly examine whether this crime has been solved. There is genuine resolution and the victim has no outstanding grievance,” said a Bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka.

“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 included Justice Augustine, said. George Masih.

The superior court, which reorganized the criminal case filed against the defendant, sent the case back to the Supreme Court, directing the victim to appear before the Supreme Court on the specified date.

“After hearing the appellant (victim), the High Court has the power to order an investigation 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 Oppressors) Act, 1989. Rejecting any compromise and the statement submitted by the defendant, the victim appealed the decision of the Supreme Court.

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 in the HC under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, for quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses on the ground of conciliation, the HC must be satisfied that the following are present: The Bench, in an order it had issued earlier this month, He stated that with the order, a real reconciliation will be achieved between the victim and the defendant.

“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.

Rape victim objected to reconciliation

• The decision came after a rape survivor challenged the Gujarat HC’s order and quashed the case based on the alleged compromise.
• Rejecting any compromise and the statement submitted by the accused, the victim challenged the HC order.
• The SC, which reopened the criminal case against the accused, sent the case back to the HC, directing the victim to appear before the Supreme Court on the appointed date.