The Supreme Court on Friday comprising of a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian directed that an FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlements between the accused and the victims. (Daxaben vs State of Gujarat)
The bench said that “abetment of suicide” also falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone.
The bench remarked, “Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victims”.
Facts of the case
The appellant is the wife of late Shailesh Kumar Chimanbhai Patel, who was stated to have committed suicide by consuming poison in his office. One Pinakin Kantibhai Patel, claiming to be a cousin of the deceased, as also an Accountant working for the deceased, lodged an FIR, naming 12 accused persons-applicants in the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that they had committed offence under Section 306 of IPC of abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased.
In the FIR it was stated that the accused persons had cheated the deceased of Rs.2,35,73,200. The deceased was in an acute financial crunch and, therefore, was compelled to take his own life.
However, before the High Court it was submitted that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes.
The appeal was filed against the Gujarat High Court verdict quashing the FIR against the accused citing a settlement with the victim’s cousin, who was the complainant in the case.
Issue before the Court
Whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could have been allowed and an FIR under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to commit suicide, entailing punishment of imprisonment of ten years, could have been quashed on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused named in the FIR.
Contention of the Parties
Ms. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents argued what is required to constitute alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench observed, "In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is 16 lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non-compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society."
The bench further remarked, "Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride burning, etc. by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498- A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose."
The bench referred to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 holding that the Section 307 of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone.
The bench allowing the appeal remarked, "In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra), Section 307 of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306 of the IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised."
The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court were set aside.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
