The Supreme Court holds that ‘Abetment of Suicide’, Section 306 IPC is a heinous offence which cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise.

The Appellant in this case is the widow of the deceased who committed suicide. As per case details the accused persons 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. The widow of the deceased filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court against the impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat which allowed the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the accused persons under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and quashed the FIR. The High Court of Gujarat also dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Appellant, the wife of the deceased, which were filed for recalling the common final order allowing the Criminal Revision Applications under section 482 Cr. PC quashing the FIR’s.
 
According to the case details one Pinakin Kantibhai Patel, claiming to be a cousin of the deceased, as also an Accountant working for the deceased, lodged an FIR with Himmatnagar Police Station, District Sabarkantha, naming 12 accused persons, being the applicants in the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, alleging that they had committed offence under Section 306 IPC of abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased. 
 
The Supreme Court observed thus:
 
In this case, however, it appears that the High Court did not even address to itself the question of whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC or not. The FIR was quashed in view of a settlement between the accused named in the FIR and the complainant. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of whether there was any direct or indirect act of incitement to the offence of abetment of suicide, since the High Court has not gone into that question. Suffice it to mention that even an indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
 
 
The High Court erred in declining the prayer of the Appellant for recalling its order allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications quashing the FIR, passed without hearing the wife of the deceased only because the original informant/complainant, a cousin brother and an employee of the deceased had been heard. Hearing a cousin-cum-employee of the deceased cannot and does not dispense with the requirement to give the wife of the deceased a hearing. The wife of the deceased would have greater interest than cousins and employees in prosecuting accused persons charged with the offence of abetting the suicide of
her husband.
 
The Supreme Court further observed that:

The only question in this appeal is whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr. PC 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 answer to the aforesaid question cannot, but be in the negative.
 
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.PC 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 Cr.PC 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.

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. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against 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. 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.
 
In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is 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.
 
In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. PC 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 Cr.PC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised.
 
The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside.

Daxaben vs State of Gujarat