AXYZ v State of Gujarat, 2024 (SC) 887
Facts: A First Information Report was registered at the instance of the appellant for the offenses punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The offenses under Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’) were also alleged. A charge sheet was filed against the second respondent for the said offenses. The Court was considering an appeal filed by a victim challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court quashing a case without the victim being present, based on an alleged settlement, involving allegations of repeated rape (Section 376(2)(n) IPC) and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The victim filed the appeal denying any settlement of the case and the affidavit produced by the accused.
Issue:Whether Victim's Presence Before Quashing Serious Offences, Especially Against Women, Based On Settlement is mandatory?
Observation: The Supreme Court has advised High Courts to exercise caution before quashing non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the victim and the accused. Even if there is an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement, it is advisable to seek the victim's presence, either physically or virtually, before quashing serious offences, especially those against women, the Court advised. The Supreme Court noted that the victim was an illiterate woman and the affidavits bore her thumb impressions, identified by her brother. The Court further noted that the affidavit did not contain the endorsement that the contents of the affidavits were explained to the illiterate person affirming the same. When such an endorsement was absent, the High Court ought to have verified its contents by personally interacting with the victim, said the Supreme Court. The criminal case was restored.
