Complainants and accused persons in rape cases cannot reach out-of-court settlements, the Kerala High Court has ruled, reported Bar and Bench on Saturday.
An agreement between the parties to this effect would be void under the Indian Contract Act for being “opposed to public policy” the court said in a judgement on August 12.
The bench of Justice A Badharudeen said this while refusing to quash a rape case because the complainant and the accused person had agreed to settle the matter between them.
“…it is well settled law that any agreement or contract would be void for the reason that if its consideration is opposed to public policy,” the court said. “In the same manner, contract or agreement for withdrawing from prosecution is nothing but stifling the prosecution involving public offence and the same also is opposed to public policy.”
The complainant, who was an employee of a grama panchayath office in the state’s Thrissur district, was allegedly raped in March 2016 by a man named Abdul Jaleel, the assistant secretary of the grama panchayath.
At the time of the alleged incident, the woman had been separated from her husband for 23 years.
She had earlier complained to the secretary of the grama panchayath about Jaleel’s behaviour toward her, which involved disrupting her work and forcing her to work with him.
Jaleel had allegedly called the woman to the panchayat office on a Sunday on the pretext of some urgent work. He then took her to his cabin and raped her, according to the woman. A criminal case was registered against Jaleel in 2018.
The court noted that Jaleel allegedly continued to sexually assault her while making promises of marriage. Jaleel, however, said he had been falsely implicated in the case so that the complainant could extort him.
Jaleel produced the text of two agreements he and the complainant had drawn up, which said that any sexual intercourse between them was consensual. The court held that the alleged incident in March 2016 could not be held to be consensual.
“Having gone through [the] agreements placed to support the settlement in between the defacto complainant and the accused, the same are intended for stifling the prosecution in a serious offence of rape,” the court held. “Therefore, the same are illegal and cannot be considered as the sole basis to quash the proceedings.”
“Trial is necessary so as to permit the prosecution to adduce evidence,” the court added.