The Delhi High Court has taken a stern view of a rape case involving legal professionals, refusing to grant interim protection from arrest to a lawyer accused of raping a 27-year-old advocate.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani termed the proceedings a "mockery of the judicial system," particularly after being informed that the accused and the victim had "settled" the matter. The case has gained notoriety due to allegations that judicial officers were used to pressure the victim, adding a layer of institutional impropriety to the criminal charges.
The allegations in the case are grave and multifaceted:
- The Accused: A 51-year-old lawyer.
- The Complainant: A 27-year-old advocate.
- The Charges: The FIR, registered in June 2025, alleges rape, criminal intimidation, and assault. The victim claimed the accused forced himself on her over five years under the pretext of marriage, leading to a pregnancy which was allegedly terminated under coercion.
- The Judicial Twist: The case hit the headlines earlier when the High Court suspended a judicial officer and initiated a probe against another for allegedly pressuring the victim to withdraw her complaint.
During the hearing, the counsel for the accused argued that the matter had been amicably resolved and that the FIR was the result of a personal dispute. Surprisingly, the complainant's lawyer also supported this, confirming that a settlement had been reached.
However, Justice Bhambhani refused to accept this "settlement" at face value, given the disturbing context of intimidation.
Key Observations by the Court:
- Murky Waters: The Court remarked, "We don't know how deep this matter has gone... With every passing phase, it gets more murky. I have seen some video recordings involving judges."
- Coerced Consent?: Addressing the settlement, the Judge observed, "Counsel threatens, the judges threaten, and then you are saying it is consensual."
- No Protection: Despite the joint plea of settlement, the Court denied anticipatory bail, noting that the conduct of the parties—levelling serious allegations, involving judges, and then suddenly settling—undermined the sanctity of the legal process.
This order reinforces that Rape is a non-compoundable offense in India, meaning it cannot be privately settled between parties to quash criminal proceedings. The Court’s refusal to grant protection highlights its intent to dig deeper into the alleged involvement of judicial officers and ensuring that the "settlement" was not a product of the very coercion alleged in the FIR.