Delhi HC fines man ₹10,000 for seeking quashing of rape case involving minor

The court underscored the need for a paradigm shift in societal mindset, saying that the blame and stigma must rest with the accused, not the victim

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on a man who sought the quashing of a rape case involving a minor. The man had argued that it was in the minor girl’s best interest to avoid social stigma but the court rejected this reasoning, saying that stigma should rest on the perpetrator, not the victim.

The victim alleged that the man had blackmailed her into a physical relationship after making her video. (HT Archive)

Refusing to quash the case, justice Girish Kathpalia, in his verdict delivered on Friday, released later, underscored the need for a paradigm shift in societal mindset, stating that the blame and stigma must rest with the accused, not with the girl who endured the trauma of rape.

In the present case, the FIR was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including rape, kidnapping and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) Act, last year. The victim alleged that the man had blackmailed her into a physical relationship after making her video.

The man had approached the high court seeking to quash the case on the ground that the victim’s parents had settled with him, and continuation of the case would result in her facing social stigma.

The Delhi Police had opposed the petition, asserting that the man had been absconding and had been declared a proclaimed offender, and the victim, as of this date, was still a minor

Rejecting the petition, the judge in his three-page order said, “I find this argument obnoxious to say the least. The stigma has to be, not on the victim of the wrong, but on the perpetrator of the wrong. There has to be a paradigm shift in the societal mindset by attaching stigma to the accused and not to the girl, who underwent horrid suffering by way of rape.”

The judge further shot down the man’s contention that he had settled the disputes with him, terming the same as without merit. “For it is the minor girl, and not her parents, who was wronged and suffered because of the alleged act on the part of the petitioner. It is only the prosecutrix who could have pardoned the wrongdoer, and that too in certain specific conditions.”