Delhi High Court Has Ruled That An FIR Alleging The Commission Of Rape Cannot Be Quashed On The Basis Of A Settlement Or Compromise.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an FIR alleging the commission of rape cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement or compromise between the accused and the victim.

In the case of Virender Chahal v. State, the petitioner, Virender Chahal (petitioner), sought to quash an FIR alleging rape, blackmailing, and threats against him, on the ground that the matter had been settled between him and the victim.

Chahal's counsel argued that the victim had falsely implicated him and that the settlement agreement should be considered as a ground for quashing the FIR. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations were serious and that the settlement agreement appeared to be financially motivated.

The High Court noted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases, including:

The inherent powers of courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should be exercised sparingly and with caution. Heinous offenses, such as rape, should not be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise. And In considering whether to quash a case, courts must evaluate the ends of justice and the possibility of abuse of process.

Further the Delhi High Court while refering to Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641, by three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after referring to several judicial precedents, had summarized the following principles: *“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. CRL.M.C. 753/2024 Page 11 of 23 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and CRL.M.C. 753/2024 Page 12 of 23 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

Analysis: The High Court found that the allegations against Chahal were serious and that the victim had supported the prosecution's case in her statements to the authorities and the court.

The court noted that the settlement agreement included a provision for Chahal to pay Rs.3.5 lakhs to the victim, which raised concerns about the motivations for the settlement.

The High Court dismissed Chahal's petition, holding that the FIR could not be quashed on the basis of the settlement agreement. The court expressed concern that the learned Trial Court Judge might have suggested the settlement to the accused and the victim, and emphasized the need for courts to protect the rights of victims of sexual assault.

Virender Chahal @ Virender VS State and Anr.
CRL.M.C. 753/2024
Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: 07-03-2024