Raising doubts about the claims in the settlement agreement, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court thereafter directed that the rape case be tried by another judge. The Delhi High Court recently expressed concern over the conduct of a trial court judge for allegedly “suggesting” to and “assisting” the accused and the woman in an alleged rape case to settle the matter during the recording of prosecution evidence. The observations came while dismissing a man’s plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for alleged rape in 2020, on the ground that the matter had been settled and compromised. The court thereafter directed that the case be tried by another judge to ensure that justice should not only be done but also seem to be done. The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in its March 7 order, said, “This Court is disturbed by the fact that it was the learned Trial Court Judge, as stated at bar as well as in the petition which is accompanied by an affidavit regarding the truthfulness of averments made in the petition, who had enquired from the victim if she wished to enter into a compromise with the accused. The Settlement Agreement in question also mentions the same, and in fact, the Agreement also records that the parties have arrived at an agreement with the aid and assistance of the learned Trial Court”. The high court observed that the trial court had framed charges against the accused and the prosecution evidence was being recorded, so it was unable to comprehend why the trial court judge would have asked the woman to settle the matter involving a heinous offence like rape. The high court further said that the woman had also stated before it that she had entered into a settlement agreement only at the asking of the trial court judge and this was mentioned in the agreement itself “which is duly notarized”. “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,” Justice Sharma said. As per the settlement agreement of January 6, the man agreed to pay Rs 3.5 lakh to the woman if the FIR is quashed, wherein she had agreed that “whatever happened between her and the accused had happened out of her free will and it was a consensual relationship”. The agreement also stated that the woman had agreed that she had deposed against the accused before the trial court due to a “misunderstanding”. On this, Justice Sharma observed, “Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for offence of rape — a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system”. Opining that rape is a “heinous violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy” and an offence against society, the high court remarked that allowing a settlement like in the present case would amount to “trivializing the sufferings of a rape victim, and reducing her anguish to a mere transaction”. Raising doubts on the claims in the settlement agreement, the high court further said that if the woman’s prior statements before the police, the magistrate and the trial court are based on a misunderstanding arising from a consensual relationship, then the “need for monetary compensation to settle the matter becomes questionable”. The high court also noted that the woman had made specific allegations in her testimony against the accused that he had intoxicated her and then established physical relations with her without her consent, as well as recorded inappropriate photographs and videos of her and had threatened her.