The Delhi High Court has voiced apprehension regarding a trial court judge purportedly proposing a compromise between a perpetrator and a rape victim to resolve the case, emphasizing that rape cases cannot be resolved outside of court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold the dignity and rights of sexual assault victims, stating that such a proposal from a judge contradicts the principles of the criminal justice system.
The court’s remarks came during the rejection of a plea to quash an FIR concerning alleged rape following a settlement reached between the parties reportedly due to the judge’s intervention.
Expressing concern over the trial judge’s conduct, Justice Sharma noted the judge’s alleged involvement in suggesting a compromise while recording prosecution evidence in a case under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.
To ensure a fair trial and to prevent doubts, the court ordered the transfer of the trial to another judge.
Also read: Supreme Court to Hear SBI’s Plea for Extension on Electoral Bonds Disclosure
The court reiterated that rape charges cannot be dropped based on a settlement unless extraordinary circumstances indicate misuse of legal process or miscarriage of justice.
Highlighting inconsistencies in the accused’s claims and the offer of compensation, the court emphasized the gravity of rape offenses and the inability to resolve them through monetary transactions.
Allowing a settlement, the court argued, would undermine the severity of rape and reduce the victim’s suffering to a mere transaction, sending a wrong message to perpetrators that their actions can be absolved by financial compensation.
The court concluded that crimes like rape demand accountability, punishment for perpetrators, and justice for victims through the judicial process, and suggesting compromise in such cases is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
