Allowing Compromise In Abetment To Suicide Case Is Against Rule Of Law As Victim Is Deceased And Cannot Give Consent: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that allowing quashing of FIR for offence of abetting suicide on the basis of compromise is against rule of law, observing that the victim being deceased couldn't give consent and the crime has large implication on society.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A settlement between the accused and the complainant, who merely initiated the criminal process, fails to satisfy the underlying rationale for such quashing. It disregards the irreversible harm inflicted upon the deceased and the broader societal interest implicated in crimes of this gravity. Thus, permitting quashing in such instances undermines the rule of law and trivializes the serious nature of the offence, warranting judicial circumspection and restraint."Adding a word of caution the Court said a plea for quashing an FIR under Section 306 of IPC/ Section 108 of BNS, filed solely on the basis of merits thereof is very much maintainable and ought to be considered and "ratiocinated upon merits thereof.""When offences of a grave and egregious nature, bearing profound and adverse ramifications on the collective psyche of society, are quashed on the pretext of a compromise-often entailing pecuniary considerations – it establishes a deleterious precedent. Such outcomes foster a perception that justice is susceptible to commodification, thereby favouring those with financial leverage," it said further.These observations were made while hearing a plea for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 306/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise deed.After hearing the submissions, "a victim cannot be relegated to the periphery or rendered a forgotten entity once the machinery of criminal law is set into motion."The judicial process mandates an equitable balance between the competing interests of the accused and the victim, ensuring neither party's rights are unjustly subordinated. Courts are the custodians of justice, and their adjudication must reflect a harmonious interplay of fairness, equity, and the overarching societal interest in upholding the rule of law."It is a bounden duty of the courts of law to ensure that justice embraces the injured and afflicted," the Court added.Referring to age-old adage Justice Goel said that, “The Law should speak on behalf of those who cannot.”The Court explained that the FIR-complainant is different from victim though, in a very given case, they may be same person.Justice Goel highlighted that in a case pertaining to an offence, as a result whereof death has occurred, "it is the deceased who is the victim. In such a case, the surviving family of the victim including spouse/parents/children/guardian/care-giver etc. nay the FIR-complainant/informant cannot adorn the mantle of victim."Furthermore the Court observed, law, being a guarantor of equity and fairness, cannot afford to be subjugated to the influence of wealth, lest it compromise its sacrosanct essence and institutional integrity.In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab. None for respondent No.2.Title: Earndeep Kaur @ Irandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 35Click here to read/download the order

Allowing Compromise In Abetment To Suicide Case Is Against Rule Of Law As Victim Is Deceased And Cannot Give Consent: Punjab & Haryana HC

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags