The Delhi High Court has raised concerns regarding the behavior of a trial court judge in the capital, who reportedly "suggested and assisted" the accused and the victim to settle a rape case while the prosecution evidence was being recorded.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has directed that the case be transferred to another judge, emphasizing the importance of not only doing justice but also ensuring that justice appears to be done. The court remarked that suggesting a compromise in a case of this nature indicates a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the seriousness and nature of offenses such as rape.

The court emphasized that cases of this nature cannot be resolved through financial settlements or out-of-court agreements. These are crimes not only against the individual but also against society as a whole. It stressed the importance of holding perpetrators accountable, ensuring punishment, and delivering justice to the victims through the judicial process.

“Therefore, this Court expresses concern over the conduct of the learned Trial Court Judge, if it is true, that the Trial Judge had suggested and assisted the accused and the victim, in a case under Section 376 of IPC, to settle the matter, while the same Court was recording the prosecution evidence.”

It added: “Thus, this Court is unable to comprehend as to why the learned Trial Court Judge would have asked the victim to settle the matter with the accused, which involves offenses of heinous nature such as Section 376 and 377 of IPC.”

The court rejected the accused's request to quash the rape case filed by the victim in 2020, arguing that the matter had been settled and compromised between the parties. The accused claimed that he was falsely accused by the victim, with whom he had been in a consensual relationship for a considerable period. He argued that during proceedings in the trial court, the victim had agreed to resolve the matter, leading to a compromise between the parties.

Despite the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which included the accused agreeing to pay Rs. 3,50,000 to the victim and her admission that their interaction was consensual, Justice Sharma dismissed the plea. This decision was made in light of specific allegations in the victim's testimony, wherein she claimed that the accused had intoxicated her at her home and then engaged in physical relations with her without her consent.

Perusing the settlement agreement, the court said: “Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for the offense of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.”

“To allow a settlement, such as the present one, to crystallize would amount to trivializing the sufferings of a rape victim, and reducing her anguish to a mere transaction. It would amount to giving a message to perpetrators of such offense that heinous act of rape can be absolved by paying money to the victim, a notion that is as repugnant as it is repulsive,” the court said.

The court further noted that the Settlement Agreement did not provide clear reasons for why the parties had decided to settle the case, aside from the victim's agreement prompted by the Trial Court Judge and the accused's willingness to pay Rs. 3.5 lakhs in exchange for exoneration. Consequently, the court declined to quash the FIR and directed that the judgment be circulated to all district court judges.