Compensation Received Under SC/ST Rules Should Be Returned When Legal Proceedings Are Discontinued Following An Amicable Settlement Between Parties: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that any compensation received under the SC/ST Rules should be returned when the legal proceedings are discontinued following an amicable settlement between the parties.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner seeking an increase in compensation under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act), following the quashing of the FIR upon an amicable settlement. The Bench remarked that the settlement and subsequent quashing of the FIR “substantially undermines the Petitioner’s right to seek further compensation.”
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that “the compensation mechanism under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with the Rules is intrinsically linked to the continuation of legal proceedings. The intent of the Act and the accompanying Rules is to deter atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by ensuring that offenders are prosecuted and that victims are supported throughout the legal process. Compensation serves as a means to facilitate justice, not as an end in itself.”
Advocate Akash Tandon appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Harshita Nathrani represented the Respondents.
Following the registration of the FIR under Sections 3(1)(c), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(ii) of the, Act the Petitioner sought compensation under Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (the Rules).
While the FIR was initially registered, the Petitioner submitted a letter indicating that the matter had been settled amicably. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the Petitioner and the accused, leading to a request for case closure. Subsequently, the FIR was quashed by the High Court upon confirmation of the settlement.
The High Court explained, “The quashing of the FIR effectively nullifies the legal basis upon which compensation under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the accompanying Rules is predicated. Compensation under the Act is contingent upon the prosecution of offenses and the victim’s active participation in the legal process to bring offenders to justice.”
The Court referred to the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Jhabbu Dubey Alias Pradeep Kumar Dubey v. State Of U.P. wherein it was held that “when a victim of an atrocity under the SC/ST (POA) Act settles the matter with the accused, any compensation received under the Act must be returned to the State government.”
The Bench stated that the Courts cannot increase the compensation awarded under the SC/ST Act when an FIR, which forms the very basis of the compensation claim, is quashed following an amicable settlement between parties.
“In the present case, as noted above, the FIR, which forms the very basis for the compensation claim, has been quashed following an amicable settlement between the parties. In these circumstances, the Court cannot issue a direction to increase the compensation awarded to the Petitioner,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “In situations where the victim and the accused have amicably settled the matter, the foundational premise of victimization under the Act is effectively negated. Therefore, awarding full compensation in such scenarios would be contrary to the spirit of the law.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Balbir Meena v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9357)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Akash Tandon and Shivam Bajaj
Respondents: Advocate Harshita Nathrani
