Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that quashed a rape and SC/ST Atrocities Act prosecution on the strength of an alleged settlement. The High Court relied on two affidavits bearing the illiterate victim's thumb impressions, executed the same day, with no endorsement that their contents had been explained to her. Before quashing non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement, the court must satisfy itself that the settlement is genuine, and in serious offences, especially against women, it should secure the victim's presence in person or by video conference. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Issues
- What the High Court must do before quashing proceedings for serious non-compoundable offences on the ground of settlement.
- Whether the High Court could act on thumb-impressed affidavits of an illiterate victim lacking an endorsement that their contents were explained to her, without securing her presence.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973When quashing of non-compoundable offences is sought on the ground of settlement under Section 482 or Article 226, the court must first be satisfied that the settlement is genuine, and only then consider whether the power should be exercised on the facts. (¶¶ 7, 14)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaTreated alongside Section 482 as a source of the power to quash on settlement, subject to the same requirement of verifying a genuine settlement. (¶¶ 7, 14)
Held
- Before quashing proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the ground of settlement, the High Court must satisfy itself that a genuine settlement exists between the victim and the accused; without that satisfaction the petition cannot proceed, and only then does the question of exercising the quashing power arise. (¶ 7)
- Even where the victim's affidavit accepting the settlement is on record, in serious offences and especially those against women, the court should secure the victim's presence personally or by video conference to examine whether the settlement is genuine and whether she has any remaining grievance. (¶ 7)
- An affidavit affirmed by an illiterate person by thumb impression should ordinarily carry an endorsement that its contents were explained; in its absence, and with two affidavits executed the same day, the High Court should have required the victim's personal presence and been cautious before acting on them. (¶ 7)
- Since the High Court quashed the proceedings without verifying whether there was a genuine settlement, its order could not stand. On remand it may hear the victim, order an inquiry by a Judicial Officer into how the affidavits were executed, and, if a settlement is found, decide whether quashing is warranted, all questions being kept open. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; the High Court's order of 29.09.2023 set aside and the quashing petition restored, to be listed before the Roster Bench on 2 December 2024 with the appellant, the accused and the State present. The appellant may file an affidavit on settlement, and the High Court may order an inquiry by a Judicial Officer if necessary.