The Delhi High Court declines quashing of FIR involving sexual violence based on monetary payment observing that this would imply that ‘Justice is for Sale.’

The Delhi High Court has declined to quash an FIR observing that:

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. Neither the accused nor the complainant can be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse 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 learned 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.

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. Neither the accused nor the complainant can be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse 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 learned 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.

The Court further observed that:

This Court has considered the fact that the FIR itself reveals serious allegations against petitioner no.1 and his family members, including consistent threats to the prosecutrix to prevent her from lodging a complaint. The Court also notes that the MOU entered into by the parties is not the result of a resolution of misunderstandings through family intervention but rather an exchange of money amounting to Rs.12 lakhs, intended to secure the quashing of the FIR. However, 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.

This Court faces a situation where the accused seeks to pay Rs.12 lakhs, and the prosecutrix seeks to accept it to quash an FIR filled with grave allegations of sexual violence and threats. In these circumstances, this Court concludes that the present case does not fall within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing an FIR. The offence under Section 376 is a serious crime against society at large.

Further, if the prosecutrix has made false allegations and lodged a false FIR, she must face the consequences if proven. Therefore, this case does not merit the quashing of the FIR but necessitates a trial to determine whether the accused committed the offences or whether the complainant lodged a false complaint and now seeks to settle by accepting Rs.1.5 lakhs. 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, whether it be the accused or the complainant.

RAKESH YADAV & ORS. Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.