Sunita Rani And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5621 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226




CRM-M-5794 of 2020           Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-M-5794 of 2020
                                Date of Decision: April 28, 2023


Sunita Rani and others                               ...Petitioners
          Versus
State of Punjab and another                          ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Gurpreet Singh Shergill, AAG, Punjab.

       Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
             *****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Prayer in this petition is to quash FIR No.2 dated 10.01.2019

registered at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa (Punjab) under Section

306 IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 02.11.2019.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 10.02.2020, parties appeared

before the trial Court and got their statements recorded, affirming the

compromise. Report dated 06.03.2020 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Mansa has been received, as per which statement of the affected

persons and the joint statement of the petitioners - accused have been

recorded and that the compromise is with free will, as parties want to live

in peace and harmony to avoid any future conflict.

3. However, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer to

quash the FIR on the basis of compromise by submitting that offence

under Section 306 IPC is a heinous crime and quashing on the basis of

compromise for such an offence cannot be allowed. He has relied upon

Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022(3)

Crimes 224, wherein accused was the wife of the deceased and her Page N: 1 of 15 Pages 1 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

prosecution was sought for committing offence under Section 306 IPC. It

was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that FIR under Section 306 IPC

cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with informant,

surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have

referred to following authorities to contend that various co-ordinate

Benches of this Court have allowed the quashing of FIR under Section

306 IPC on the basis of compromise;

•(a) Satish Kumar Bhargav and others Vs. State of

Punjab and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 103;

•(b) Varinder Kumar @ Bita and others Vs. State of

Punjab and another - CRM-M-13053 of 2017 (O&M)

decided on 22.08.2019;

•(c) Amar Nath Vs. State of Punjab and another -

CRM-M-12158 of 2018 decided on 09.05.2019;

•(d) Nirmaljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and

Another - CRM-M-50641 of 2021 (O&M), decided on

10.04.2023.

5. Considered the submissions of counsel for all the sides and

perused the record.

6. The limits of the inherent power granted to the High Courts

under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been defined by Hon'ble Supreme Court

from time to time in catena of authorities. In Smt. Nagawwa Vs.

Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736,

while discussing the scope of Section 202 and 204 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and

the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 Page N: 2 of 15 Pages 2 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

Cr.P.C, by observing as follows:-

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the

statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken

at their face value make out absolutely no case against the

accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential

ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently

absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can

ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing

process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on

no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or

inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects,

such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally

competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are

purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate

contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings."

7. Taking similar view, it has been held in Sharda

Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, (1977) 1 SCC 505, as

under:-

"It is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the

complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is

competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to

quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of

the offence.

Page N: 3 of 15 Pages 3 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an

accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of

the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is

constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations

and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting

anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be

justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 of the present Code."

8. In Kapil Agarwal & Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma &

Others, (2021) 5 SCC 524, Hon'ble Apex Court observed

that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the purpose of

ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to degenerate into

weapons of harassment.

9. Offence under Section 306 of the IPC of abetment to commit

suicide is a grave and non-compoundable offence. The inherent power of

the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be

exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable

offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of

Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes

essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its

power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.

In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal

proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the

facts and circumstances of the case.

10. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi

Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688, a three-Judge Bench of

Page N: 4 of 15 Pages 4 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the earlier judgments of the Court and

laid down the following principles:-

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of

this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed

and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to

quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable

offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having

overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,

particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or

arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and

when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst

themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those

prosecutions which involved heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offences like

murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not

private in nature and have a serious impact on

society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences

under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or

the offences committed by public servants while working in that

capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise

between the victim and the offender;

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc.

would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and

therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not

against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal Page N: 5 of 15 Pages 5 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or

the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society

cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the

Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire

dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not

rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section

307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.

It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether

incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the

prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved,

would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this

purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of

injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the

vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc.

However, such an exercise by the High Court would be

permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation

and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the

trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still

under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras

29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh

[(2014) 6 SCC 466: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read

harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances

stated herein above;

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code

to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-

compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not

have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a

settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the

High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the Page N: 6 of 15 Pages 6 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused

was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had

managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

11. The above-said legal position would reveal that though

inherent power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal

proceedings can be exercised even for non-compoundable offences, not

covered under Section 320 of the Code but such power should not be

exercised in those proceedings, which involve heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity i.e., offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc.

As such, proceedings arising out of offences which are not private in

nature and have a serious impact on the society, should not be allowed to

be quashed.

12. In Daxaben (supra), it has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court as under:-

"37. Offence under Section 306 of the IPC of abetment to commit

suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence. Of course, the

inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings

relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of

justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the

victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil

and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power

under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.

In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or

criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would

depend on the facts and circumstances of the case."

13. Thus, though offence under Section 306 IPC of abetment to

Page N: 7 of 15 Pages 7 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

commit suicide is grave and non-compoundable offence but it has been

clarified that in what cases, power to quash the FIR or a criminal

complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised,

would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. As held in State of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi

Narayan and others' case (supra), though offence under

Section 307 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and,

so, is to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual

alone, but still the High Court would not raise its decision merely because

there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charges framed

under this provision. It is open to the High Court to examine as to

whether the incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or

the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would

lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.

15. On the same analogy, it is required to be seen by the High

Court as to whether Section 306 IPC is even made out from the contents

of FIR or not before coming to the conclusion that quashing of

proceedings under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise should be

allowed or not by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

16. In the present case, the perusal of the FIR (Annexure P.1)

would reveal that it was lodged on the complaint of one Bhoora Ram, one

of whose sons, committed suicide on 26.12.2018. The accused named in

the FIR (petitioners herein) are wife of the deceased, her parents, brothers

and sisters. Allegations made in the FIR are that accused- petitioners used

to harass the deceased and though the deceased was of religious nature,

his wife, i.e., petitioner - Sunita Rani was of quarrelsome nature and did

Page N: 8 of 15 Pages 8 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

not change her behaviour despite passage of time. It was also alleged that

as and when deceased talked to his in-laws, they used to side with their

daughter Sunita Rani. There is also reference of suicide note left by the

deceased in which he blamed the accused- petitioners to be responsible

for his death.

17. The question is as to whether on the basis of above-said

vague allegations, Section 306 IPC is made out, as no details whatsoever

are given as to when and in what manner, petitioners harassed the

deceased. There is no specific attribution to any of the petitioners. Simply

by mentioning in the suicide note that accused- petitioners are responsible

for the commission of suicide by deceased, cannot be sufficient to invoke

Section 306 IPC.

18. Section 107 and 306 IPC are relevant her, which read as

under:-

"306. Abetment of suicide. -If any person commits

suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

"107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of

a thing, who -

First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in

any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal

omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in

order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the

going of that thing.

Page N: 9 of 15 Pages 9 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

Explanation 1. - A person who, why willful misrepresentation, or

by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to

disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or

procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that

thing.

Explanation 2. - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the

commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the

commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission

thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

19. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sections 306 and

107 of the Indian Penal Code in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (2) Cri.L.J. 2110 held as

under:-

"1. In order to convict a person under Section 306 Indian Penal

Code, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the

offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which led

the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must

have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that

he committed suicide.

2. Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing

of a thing - Without a positive act on the part of the accused to

instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be

sustained.

3. There should be intention to provoke, incite or

encourage the doing of an act by the latter - Each

person's suicidability pattern is different from the others - Each

Page N: 10 of 15 Pages 10 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect -

Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula

in dealing with such cases - Each case has to be decided on the

basis of its own facts and circumstances. 2009(4) RCR (Crl.) 196

(SC) relied."

20. Further, there should be an allegation of either direct or

indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide. In

Ude Singh & Others Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17

SCC 301, reiterating the earlier decisions, it has been held that

instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite

or encourage to do an act. If the person who commits suicide had

been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily

expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it

may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.

However, on the other hand, if the accused by his act or by his continuous

course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving

no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the

four corners of Section 306 IPC.

21. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190, it has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court and observed as under:-

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a

person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.

Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or

aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The

intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by

this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section

Page N: 11 of 15 Pages 11 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It

also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to

commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been

intended to push the deceased into such a position that he

committed suicide."

22. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal

Jaiswal and Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 73, Hon'ble The Supreme

Court observed that:

"We may add here that the Court should be extremely careful in

assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the

evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether

the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end

the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a

victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary

petulance discord and differences in domestic life quite common

to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance

discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly

circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the

conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a

finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide

should be found guilty."

23. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. &

Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the appellant was charged for

an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during

the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. It was

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere words uttered by the accused to

the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate

Page N: 12 of 15 Pages 12 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

the deceased to commit suicide.

24. When the legal position as discussed above for making out

an offence under Section 306 IPC is applied to the facts of the present

case, it would make out that even prima-facie offence under Section 306

IPC is not made out, as the allegations contained in the FIR against the

petitioners are quite vague and general in nature with no specific

attribution to anybody. Merely by blaming the petitioners to be

responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased in the suicide note,

cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC.

25. In the aforesaid circumstances, when this Court is not even

convinced that offence under Section 306 IPC would prima facie make

out, it is felt that there should be no hesitation in quashing the FIR based

on compromise amongst the parties.

26. In Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others (2017) 13 SCC 369, it was held by

Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid

down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction

of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench

of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. L.

Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court

is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that

allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the

process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the

proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the

following has been stated:

Page N: 13 of 15 Pages 13 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

'7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is

entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that

allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the

process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the

proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's

inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to

achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court

proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon

of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object

behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on

which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would

justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest

of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere

law though justice has got to be administered according to laws

made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making

these observations is that without a proper realisation of the

object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the

inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State

and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width

and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

27. In view of entire evaluation of the facts and legal position as

above, this Court finds that as allegations set out in the FIR do not

constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC, therefore, the petitioners

should not be compelled to undergo the rigmarole and ordeal of trial,

particularly when the compromise has been effected between the

petitioners and the family members of the deceased and so, quashing of

the proceedings would serve the solitary purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C so

as to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.

Page N: 14 of 15 Pages 14 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

CRM-M-5794 of 2020 Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:062226

28. In the similar facts and circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench

of this High Court quashed proceedings under Section 306 IPC in CRM-

M-50641 of 2021 (O&M) titled "Nirmaljit Singh and others

Vs. State of Punjab and another(supra)", after finding that

as per the allegations in the FIR, no offence under Section 306 IPC was

made out. Similarly, other co-ordinate Benches of this High Court in

Satish Kumar Bhargav and others (supra), Varinder

Kumar @ Bita and others (supra) and Amar Nath Vs.

State of Punjab and another (supra), have allowed the

quashing of the FIRs under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise.

29. In view of the entire discussion, present petition is accepted.

FIR No.2 dated 10.01.2019 registered under Section 306 IPC at Police

Station Bhikhi, District Mansa, and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated

02.11.2019.

April 28, 2023                                   (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu                                                 JUDGE

                    Whether reasoned/speaking:        Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:               Yes/No




                             Page N: 15 of 15 Pages        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062226

                                      15 of 15