Supreme Court on Quashing Criminal Proceedings Based on Settlement in Heinous Offences: XYZ vs. State of Gujarat (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 5 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 869

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for serious offences, such as rape, based on a settlement between the victim and the accused, without ensuring the settlement is genuine? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of rape and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court emphasized the necessity of verifying the authenticity of such settlements, especially when the victim is a vulnerable individual. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih.

Case Background

The appellant, the first informant, filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging offences under Section 376(2)(N) (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act). The second respondent was named as the accused. A charge sheet was subsequently filed against the second respondent.

The second respondent then approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet, claiming a settlement had been reached with the appellant. The High Court, accepting this claim, quashed the criminal proceedings, directing that the compensation received by the appellant under the Atrocities Act be refunded.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings based on the alleged settlement between the parties. The High Court directed that the compensation received by the appellant under the Atrocities Act be refunded. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offence of rape, specifically when committed by a person in a position of authority or trust.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offence of criminal intimidation.
• Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act): These sections relate to offences of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Grants the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Grants the High Court the inherent power to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court considered the interplay of these provisions in the context of quashing criminal proceedings based on settlements, especially in cases involving serious offences.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceedings without ensuring the appellant’s personal presence and verifying the settlement with her.
• The affidavits presented as evidence of settlement were suspicious. One affidavit was in English, executed in Ahmedabad, while the other was in Gujarati, executed in Rajkot, both on the same day. The appellant is illiterate and her thumb impressions were taken without proper endorsement that the contents were explained to her.
• The practice of producing affidavits along with the quashing petition is objectionable.
• It is not clear whether the Advocate representing the appellant had the authority to do so.
• Even if a settlement existed, the High Court should not have quashed the charge sheet due to the heinous nature of the offence.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The affidavits were countersigned by the appellant’s brother.
• Copies of Aadhar cards were attached to the affidavits.
• The appellant had sent a letter to the police station confirming she had affixed her thumb impressions on documents and received Rs. 3,00,000.
• The appellant was personally present in the High Court along with her husband on a date fixed for hearing of the bail application.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in questioning the procedure followed by the High Court in accepting the settlement without proper verification, especially given the vulnerability of the appellant as an illiterate woman.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings based on the alleged settlement without ensuring the personal presence of the appellant and verifying the genuineness of the settlement, especially considering the serious nature of the offences and the appellant’s illiteracy.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly mention any specific cases or books. However, the Court did refer to the following legal provisions:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The Court referred to the High Court’s power to issue writs, emphasizing that this power must be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offences.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): The Court discussed the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process, highlighting that this power should not be used to quash proceedings without proper verification of a settlement.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court did not explicitly cite any cases, but the following legal provisions were considered:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The Court acknowledged the High Court’s power under this Article but emphasized the need for judicious exercise, especially in serious cases.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): The Court acknowledged the High Court’s inherent power but cautioned against its use without proper verification of a settlement.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly illiterate women, from potential exploitation. The Court emphasized that in cases involving serious offences, especially those against women, the High Court must be extremely cautious when considering quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement. The Court was concerned about the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the affidavits, the lack of proper endorsement, and the absence of the appellant’s personal verification of the settlement.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative of accepting the High Court’s decision but rejected it, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the need to protect vulnerable individuals. The Court’s decision was reached by prioritizing the need for a genuine settlement verification over procedural expediency.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court with specific directions. The Court directed the High Court to ensure the appellant’s presence to verify the settlement and, if necessary, to order an inquiry into the execution of the affidavits. The Court also clarified that even if a settlement is found, the High Court must still consider whether it is appropriate to quash the proceedings given the nature of the offences.

“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.”

“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.”

“After considering all the relevant materials, if necessary, the High Court can always order an inquiry to be held by a Judicial Officer on the question of whether there was a settlement between the appellant and the second respondent and whether the affidavits were affirmed after explaining the contents thereof to the appellant.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must ensure the genuineness of settlements in criminal cases, especially when serious offences are involved.
• In cases involving vulnerable victims, such as illiterate women, personal verification of the settlement is crucial.
• Affidavits presented as proof of settlement must be properly endorsed to confirm that the contents were explained to the person affirming them.
• High Courts should be cautious in quashing criminal proceedings for heinous offences, even if there is a settlement.
• The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the need to protect vulnerable individuals from potential exploitation within the legal system.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to:

• Ensure the personal presence of the appellant on the date fixed by the Court (2nd December, 2024).
• Allow the appellant to explain her position regarding the alleged settlement.
• Order an inquiry by a Judicial Officer if necessary, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the execution of the affidavits and the genuineness of the settlement.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must exercise extreme caution when quashing criminal proceedings for serious offences based on settlements, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals. This judgment reinforces the need for thorough verification of settlements to ensure that they are genuine and not the result of exploitation or coercion. This case clarifies that the High Court cannot merely rely on affidavits and must ensure the victim’s personal presence to verify the settlement. The judgment also indicates that even if a settlement is found, the High Court must still consider the gravity of the offence before quashing the proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in XYZ vs. The State of Gujarat underscores the importance of ensuring genuine settlements in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious offences against vulnerable individuals. The Court’s emphasis on personal verification and thorough inquiry highlights the need for a cautious approach by High Courts when considering quashing criminal proceedings based on settlements. This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary’s role in protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable members of society.