Quashing sexual violence cases upon monetary settlement would imply "justice is for sale": Delhi HC
New Delhi (PTI): Criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments as doing so would imply that “justice is for sale”, the Delhi High Court has observed.
The high court said even if the parties have reached a compromise in a sexual violence case, they cannot demand quashing of the FIR as a matter of right.
The court made the observation while rejecting a plea moved by a rape accused seeking quashing of an FIR registered by a woman on the ground that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and that she agreed to settle for Rs 1.5 lakh.
“… This court is of the opinion that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments, as doing so would imply that justice is for sale,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The high court, in an order passed on Monday, said it has considered the fact that the FIR itself reveals serious allegations against the man and his family members, including consistent threats to the prosecutrix (woman) to prevent her from lodging a complaint.
The court noted that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) entered into by the parties is not the result of a resolution of misunderstandings through family intervention but an exchange of money totalling Rs 12 lakh, intended to secure the quashing of the FIR. The woman had initially demanded Rs 12 lakh from the man but later settled for Rs 1.5 lakh.
In the FIR, the woman, who was divorced and had a child, alleged that the accused had misrepresented himself as a divorcee and engaged in sexual relationship and sexual violence with her under the false pretext of marriage.
The FIR also alleged shooting of inappropriate videos and photos by the accused, threats to kill her and her son, and repeated misrepresentation by the accused.
Later, it was submitted that the FIR had been lodged since the woman was angry and that it be now quashed as they have reached a settlement.
The prosecutor opposed the plea saying if the FIR is quashed on the ground that the prosecutrix had lodged the complaint out of anger towards the accused, it would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of the criminal justice system.
The high court said if the woman has made false allegations and lodged a false FIR, she must face the consequences. The FIR, it added, does not merit to be quashed.
The court said the case necessitates a trial to determine whether the accused committed the offences or the complainant lodged a false complaint and now seeks to settle it after accepting Rs 1.5 lakh.
“This court is of the opinion that true justice and the ends of justice will be served not by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, be it the accused or the complainant.
“This court is of the opinion that justice in a criminal trial, particularly in a case such as the present one, serves not only as a serious example and deterrent to the accused but also as a lesson to the community as a whole,” Justice Sharma said.
The high court said neither the accused nor the complainant can be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse the state and judicial resources to serve their own ends.
“Therefore, even if the parties have reached a compromise, they cannot demand the quashing of an FIR as a matter of right.
"The trial court must decide the case on its merits, examining the facts in light of natural justice for both the complainant and the accused, as well as considering the broader implications for the community and the criminal justice system. Every judgment carries its own message, and this one emphasises that the integrity of the judicial process must be upheld,” it said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
West Bengal Speaker administers oath to 2 TMC MLAs, Raj Bhavan calls its constitutional impropriety
Kolkata, Jul 5: West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee administered the oath to two newly elected TMC MLAs on Friday, defying the Governor's directive to appoint Deputy Speaker Asish Banerjee for the task, sparking accusations of constitutional impropriety from Raj Bhavan.
The incident led Governor C V Ananda Bose to send a report to President Droupadi Murmu, alleging that the Speaker's actions violated constitutional norms.
According to a Raj Bhavan official, Bose wrote to the President, asserting that the administration of oaths to the MLAs by the Bengal Speaker at the state Assembly was unconstitutional.
The special one-day session of the assembly adjourned sine die after the legislators were sworn in.
The swearing in of the two TMC MLAs - Rayat Hossain Sarkar from Bhagwangola in Murshidabad district and Sayantika Bandopadhyay from Baranagar on the northern outskirts of Kolkata - ended the month-long impasse between Raj Bhavan and the assembly over the venue of the ceremony and the administering authority.
In a sudden turn of events on Thursday evening, Governor Bose authorised Deputy Speaker Asish Banerjee to administer the oath in the assembly on Friday, retracting his earlier stance that the MLAs would be sworn in at Raj Bhavan.
However, during the one-day special session, Deputy Speaker Asish Banerjee declined to administer the oath, citing that it would be inappropriate in the presence of the Speaker.
"It is against the norms for the Deputy Speaker to administer the oath when the Speaker is present in the Chair. It would disrespect the Speaker's position," he said in the assembly.
Responding to the Deputy Speaker's appeal, Biman Banerjee called the MLAs to the floor and administered the oath himself.
TMC members of the assembly cheered with 'Jai Bangla' slogans as the MLAs took their oaths.
Asish Banerjee defended his action, saying, "I followed the rules of the assembly. According to Rule 5 of the assembly proceedings, if the Speaker is present, I cannot administer the oath."
Later in the afternoon, Raj Bhavan posted on social media that a report is being sent to the President highlighting the constitutional impropriety of the Speaker administering the oath instead of the Deputy Speaker, as appointed by the Governor.
"The constitutional transgression has been done in spite of Hon’ble Governor appointing Deputy Speaker as the person before whom the two newly elected MLAs shall make and subscribe an oath or affirmation," a statement from Raj Bhavan said.
In an apparent reference to Rule 5 of the assembly proceedings mentioned by the Speaker and his deputy, the Raj Bhavan referred to constitutional provisions and wondered whether any rule of the assembly can be above it.
"It is elementary knowledge that the Constitution supersedes any assembly rule," a Raj Bhavan statement read.
A Raj Bhavan official informed PTI that in his letter to President Murmu, the Governor also stated that the Speaker's actions were a violation of the Constitution.
In response to the Governor's letter, Speaker Biman Banerjee asserted, "The Governor does not have the authority to dismiss me. I have already informed the President about the situation and sought her intervention."
The Speaker had previously sought the President's intervention in the matter, accusing the Governor of turning it into an ego battle.
State Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay insisted that no House rules were violated.
"Rule 5 of the Assembly proceedings was followed. The Governor appointed the deputy speaker, who then recused himself citing Rule 5, as administering the oath in the Speaker's presence would have been disrespectful."
Meanwhile, the BJP legislative party did not attend the session, citing there was no prior notice.
The two legislators had been staging a sit-in on the assembly premises in protest against the Governor's earlier stance, demanding to be sworn in by the Speaker within the assembly premises, in line with House conventions.
"We are very pleased to have been sworn in within the assembly. Due to the delay in our oath-taking, we were unable to serve our constituencies as MLAs," said Bandopadhyay, a former actor-turned politician.
The relationship between the West Bengal Governor and the TMC government has been contentious since he assumed office in November 2022, resulting in numerous disputes on various issues.
