2022 Supreme(SC) 633

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Daxaben – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1061 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022)
Decided On : 29-07-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Abetment of suicide – Even an indirect act of incitement to commission of suicide would constitute offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
(2) Criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified, is not vitiated on account of malafides or vendetta.
(3) 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 offender and complainant and/or victim.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of criminal case – In FIR, it was alleged that deceased had been making phone calls to accused persons calling upon them to return his money, but they did not do so – Accused had cheated deceased of Rs.2,35,73,200/- – Deceased was in acute financial crunch and constrained to take his own life – FIR was quashed in view of a settlement between accused named in FIR and complainant – Even an indirect act of incitement to commission of suicide would constitute offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC – High Court did not address to itself question of whether it had jurisdiction to quash a criminal complaint under Section 306 of IPC, which is a grave non-compoundable offence – Hearing a cousin-cum-employee of deceased cannot and does not dispense with requirement to give wife of deceased a hearing – Wife of deceased would have greater interest than cousins and employees in prosecuting accused persons charged with offence of abetting suicide of her husband – Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between accused and complainant and other relatives of deceased to exclusion of hapless widow of deceased – Section 307 of IPC falls in category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against individual alone – On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306 of IPC would fall in same category – FIR under Section 306 of IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else – Impugned orders of High Court set aside. (Paras 15, 16, 22, 23, 50 and 51)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal proceeding – Even though, inherent power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases – Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for asking – In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of process of Court, High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal proceedings – However, interference would only be justified when complaint did not disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that accusation would not be sustained – Criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified, is not vitiated on account of malafides or vendetta. (Paras 27, 29, 31 and 35)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Abetment of suicide – Compounding of offence – Offence under Section 306 of IPC of abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence – Where victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings – Before exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, High Court has to be circumspect and have due regard to nature and gravity of offence – 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 offender and complainant and/or 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 offence is serious and grave and falls within ambit of crime against society. (Paras 37 and 38)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Quashing of criminal case – Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with complainant, would set a dangerous precedent – In Criminal Jurisprudence, position of complainant is only that of informant – Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by State, it becomes a matter between State and accused – State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society – It is for State to prosecute offenders – In case of grave and serious non-compoundable offences which impact society, informant and/or complainant only has right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of offender – Informant has no right in law to withdraw complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature which impacts society. (Paras 39 and 40)

Facts of the case:

Appeals are against the impugned final judgment and order dated 20th October 2020 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing the Criminal Revisional Applications under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Appellant is the wife of deceased who is stated to have committed suicide on 1st March 2020 by consuming poison in his office. Only question in this appeal is whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could have been allowed and an FIR under Section 306 of IPC for abetment to commit suicide, entailing punishment of imprisonment of ten years, could have been quashed on the basis of settlement between the complainant and the accused named in FIR.

Findings of Court:

It was not necessary for this Court to examine 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.P.C., quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised.

Result : Appeals allowed.