Sunita Rani vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2652

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Sunita Rani & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 5794 of 2020
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Shergill, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioners sought to quash FIR under Section 306 IPC based on compromise - State Counsel opposed the request, citing the nature of the crime - Court highlights guidelines for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting inherent powers depend on facts and circumstances - Court concludes allegations in FIR are vague, insufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC, and quashes FIR - Earlier judgments supporting this reasoning are discussed. (Paras 3, 12, 27, 29)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused of abetting suicide, sought to quash an FIR based on a compromise - FIR alleged harassment resulting in the victim's suicide, highlighted by vague accusations and a general suicide note.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, allowing the quashing of the proceedings.

Issues: The court addressed whether vague allegations in the FIR satisfied the threshold for abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that crimes with vague allegations cannot warrant prosecution, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence connecting the accused to the act of abetment.

Result: FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. quashing of fir sought based on compromise. (Para 1 , 2)
2. opposition to compromise based on severity of the offence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. inherent power of high court under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. conditions under which quashing can occur. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. specific case details regarding fir's allegations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. interpretation of sections 306 and 107 ipc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. quashing permitted to prevent abuse of court process. (Para 25 , 26)
8. judicial precedents on similar cases. (Para 27 , 28)
9. final order quashing the fir. (Para 29)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Prayer in this petition is to quash FIR No.2 dated 10.01.2019 registered at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa (Punjab) under Section 306 IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 02.11.2019.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 10.02.2020, parties appeared before the trial Court and got their statements recorded, affirming the compromise. Report dated 06.03.2020 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa has been received, as per which statement of the affected persons and the joint statement of the petitioners - accused have been recorded and that the compromise is with free will, as parties want to live in peace and harmony to avoid any future conflict.

3. However, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise by submitting that offence under Section 306 IPC is a heinous crime and quashing on the basis of compromise for such an offence cannot be allowed. He has relied upon Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and others , 2022(3) Crimes 224 , wherein accused was the wife of the deceased and her prosecution was sought for committing offence under Section 306 IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to following authorities to contend that various co-ordinate Benches of this Court have allowed the quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC on the basis of compromise;

(a) Satish Kumar Bhargav and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 103;

(b) Varinder Kumar @ Bita and others v. State of Punjab and another - CRM-M-13053 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 22.08.2019;

(d) Nirmaljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Another - CRM-M-50641 of 2021 (O&M), decided on 10.04.2023.

5. Considered the submissions of counsel for all the sides and perused the record.

6. The limits of the inherent power granted to the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been defined by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in catena of authorities. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi , (1976) 3 SCC 736 , while discussing the scope of Section 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, by observing as follows:-

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defect