A mere family dispute or heated exchange does not constitute 'instigation' for abetment to suicide. Without evidence of intentional provocation or goading toward the specific act of suicide, an FIR may be quashed if the parties have reached a voluntary compromise and wish to resolve their differences.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioners, namely: (i) Gurjant Singh, aged 32 years; (ii) Gurmej Singh, aged 59 years; (iii) Jagdish Singh @ Bakshish Singh, aged 35 years; and (iv) Nachhattar Singh, aged 46 years, have filed the instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of impugned FIR No. 74 dated 02.08.2022, registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148, and 149 of the IPC (Section 306 IPC having been added later vide DDR No. 37 dated 10.08.2022), at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties.

2. FIR in the present case was registered at the instance of Respondent No.2, Jasbir Kaur, alleging therein that her younger son, Mandeep Singh, was married to Pawandeep Kaur, daughter of Gurmej Singh (Petitioner No.2), about four years and six months prior to the occurrence. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Pawandeep Kaur had earlier submitted a complaint to the Women Cell, Tarn Taran; however, same was subsequently compromised.

On 02.08.2022, at about 8:00–9:00 a.m., a scuffle took place between Pawandeep Kaur and her husband-Mandeep Singh (son of the complainant). Later, at about 11:00–11:30 a.m., when complainant, her husband-Gurcharan Singh, and her son Mandeep Singh were present in their house, petitioners’ party allegedly reached their residence, with one of them holding an iron rod. Gurcharan Singh (husband of the complainant), Mandeep Singh (son of the complainant), and the complainant herself were allegedly beaten, and insulting taunts were allegedly hurled by Pawandeep Kaur. Thereafter, complainant’s husband Gurcharan Singh, consumed insecticide (mono), generally used for spraying crops, by opening its lid, and subsequently expired.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident occurred on 02.08.2022, whereas Section 306 IPC was added later vide DDR No. 37 dated 10.08.2022, i.e. after about eight days of the incident. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted only against four of the petitioners herein. It is argued that, prima facie, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out, as there is no element of instigation or abetment attributable to the petitioners.

Learned Senior counsel further submits that after the occurrence and submission of the challan, both sides have amicably resolved all their disputes and have entered into a compromise vide compromise deed dated 05.05.2025. Prior thereto, Respondent No.2, Jasbir Kaur—who is none other than the wife of the deceased—had executed an affidavit stating that relatives, respectable persons, and responsible members of society had intervened, pursuant to which a mutual compromise was arrived at between the accused and the victims.

In the affidavit as well as in the compromise, the complainant has categorically clarified that there was no fault on the part of the accused persons in the death of Gurcharan Singh. Consequently, she has expressed that she is no longer interested in pursuing the present case if the same is quashed and has conveyed her willingness to make the requisite statement, if so required by this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court titled ‘Nirmaljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another’, CRM-M-50641-2021, decided on 10.04.2023, and contend that there was no instigation on the part of the accused towards the deceased, so as to constitute abetment to commit suicide, as the essential ingredients o