Before Quashing Serious Criminal Cases, Procure Victim’s Presence To Examine Whether Settlement Is Genuine: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that even if an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement is on record, in cases of serious offences and especially against women, it is always advisable to procure the presence of the victim either personally or through video conference.
With this, the Court can properly examine whether there is a genuine settlement and that the victim has no subsisting grievance, the Court said.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih said, “When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for quashing criminal proceedings of non-compoundable offences on the ground of settlement, the High Court must satisfy itself that there is a genuine settlement between the victim and the accused. Without the Court being satisfied with the existence of a genuine settlement, the petition for quashing cannot proceed further”, it said.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli appeared for the Respondent.
A First Information Report was registered at the instance of the appellant-informant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC). The offences under Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also alleged. A charge sheet was filed against the second respondent-accused for the said offences. The second respondent filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the charge sheet based on the settlement allegedly arrived between the parties.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings with a direction that the compensation received by the appellant under the Atrocities Act shall be refunded to the concerned authority.
It was the case of the appellant that the High Court ought not to have quashed the criminal proceedings without securing the personal presence of the appellant before it and without verifying from the appellant whether there was a settlement.
Highlighting the fact that the appellant is illiterate and had allegedly put her thumb impressions on the affidavits, it was submitted that there was no endorsement on the affidavit made by the witness or Advocate representing the appellant or the notary public that the contents of the affidavit were explained to her.
It was the second respondent’s case that the affidavits had been countersigned by the appellant’s brother. It was submitted that on a date fixed for hearing of the bail application filed before the High Court by the second respondent, the appellant was personally present in the High Court along with her husband.
At the outset, the Bench took note of the fact that the offences alleged were very serious. The offences alleged were under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC and the Atrocities Act.
The Bench also observed, “Even if an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement is on record, in cases of serious offences and especially against women, it is always advisable to procure the presence of the victim either personally or through video conference so that the Court can properly examine whether there is a genuine settlement and that the victim has no subsisting grievance.”
Such formalities were all the more necessary in this case as the affidavits filed on record indicated that the appellant is an illiterate woman. Though both the affidavits bear thumb impressions of the appellant, the Bench stated that when illiterate persons affirm such affidavits by putting their thumb impressions, usually, the affidavit must bear an endorsement that the contents of the affidavits were explained to the person affirming the same.
As per the Bench, after noticing the absence of such an endorsement, the High Court ought to have directed the appellant to personally remain present before the Court so that the High Court could have carried out the due verifications.
Considering that the High Court passed the impugned judgment without verifying whether there was a genuine settlement between the appellant and the second respondent, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court with a direction to the appellant to remain present before the High Court on the date fixed by the Apex Court.
Cause Title: XYZ v. The State Of Gujarat & Anr [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4748/2024]
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, AOR Paras Nath Singh, Advocates Rohin Bhatt & Sadeeq UR Rahman
Respondent: Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Devyani Bhatt, Abhipsa Mohanty, Shrishti Mishra, Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate Rakesh Malhotra, Advocates Savita Singh, AOR Kushal Malhotra