Quashing Rape FIRs Based On Monetary Settlements Would Mean Justice Is For Sale: Delhi HC
Quashing rape FIRs based on monetary settlements would mean justice is for sale, as emphasized by the Delhi High Court, explained with reference to legal reasoning and case law,
Context:
In many criminal cases, parties sometimes try to resolve disputes through monetary settlements or compromises. While this may work for some minor offences, rape is a serious offence against society and the victim’s dignity. The courts have consistently held that such offences cannot be compromised or settled for money.
What Does the Delhi High Court Say?
The Delhi High Court has firmly stated that:
Quashing or withdrawing a rape FIR just because the parties have reached a monetary settlement is impermissible.
Allowing such quashing would imply that justice can be bought and sold.
This undermines the rule of law and the societal interest in punishing serious crimes.
The State, as a protector of society, cannot allow serious offences to be wiped out through private compromises.
Why is Monetary Settlement Not Allowed in Rape Cases?
Rape is an Offence Against Society, Not Just the Individual:
The crime affects the public at large because it attacks a person’s bodily autonomy and dignity.
Therefore, the State has a duty to prosecute regardless of any private compromise.
Victim’s Dignity and Public Interest:
Monetary settlements reduce the crime to a commercial transaction, demeaning the seriousness of the offence.
It denies justice to the victim and sends a wrong message to society.
Prevents Misuse and Exploitation:
If monetary settlements were accepted, there could be pressure on victims to settle for money, sometimes against their will.
It also allows offenders with money to escape punishment.
Case Law Illustrations:
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (hypothetical for this context)
The Court held that offences affecting society's morals and values, like rape, cannot be compromised. Monetary settlement cannot be a ground for quashing FIRs in such cases.
XYZ v. State of Delhi (again hypothetical)
The court refused to quash a rape FIR where parties had agreed to settle the matter financially, stating that public interest outweighs any private arrangement.
Judicial Reasoning:
Courts exercise caution in quashing FIRs under serious offences.
The power to quash is discretionary and used sparingly, especially where public interest is involved.
Monetary settlements in rape cases defeat the purpose of criminal law which is to punish offenders and deter crimes.
Practical Implication:
Even if the victim agrees to settle the case financially, the police and courts must continue the prosecution.
Courts may only quash such FIRs where the allegations are false or baseless, not merely because a settlement was reached.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Monetary Settlement Allowed? | Why/Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Minor offences | Sometimes allowed | Offences affecting private rights only |
| Serious offences like rape | Not allowed | Offence against society; public interest |
| Quashing FIR on settlement | Impermissible | Justice cannot be bought or sold |
Conclusion:
Quashing rape FIRs on the basis of monetary settlements undermines justice and public confidence in the legal system. The Delhi High Court’s stance is clear: the State has a duty to prosecute serious crimes regardless of any private compromise, ensuring that justice is served, victims are protected, and offenders are held accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments