Section 306 IPC - Abetment Of Suicide A Heinous Offence ; Cannot Be Quashed On The Basis Of Compromise : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlement.The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed 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."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 victim", the bench observed.The case against the accused was that they had cheated the deceased of Rs.2,35,73,200/- and thus the deceased, who was in acute financial crunch, was constrained to take his own life. In petition filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC, the Gujarat High Court had quashed FIR under Section 306 IPC filed against the accused in view of a settlement between the accused named in the FIR and the complainant- a cousin of the deceased. The application seeking recall of the judgment filed by the wife of the deceased was also dismissed.Before the Apex Court, the issue raised was 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? The bench, at the outset, noted that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC of abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence. The court made the following observationsCrimes against society cannot be quashed on compromiseHeinous 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 victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.Otherwise, it would set a dangerous precedentOrders 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 purposeAn 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.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 court noted a three judges bench judgment in 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"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 court said while allowing the appealCase detailsDaxaben vs State of Gujarat | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642 | SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022 | 29 July 2022 | Justices Indira Banerjee...

Section 306 IPC - Abetment Of Suicide A Heinous Offence ; Cannot Be Quashed On The Basis Of Compromise : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok KM

Section 306 IPC - Abetment Of Suicide A Heinous Offence ; Cannot Be Quashed On The Basis Of Compromise : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers