Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – FIR u/s.306 for abetment to commit suicide, entailing punishment of imprisonment of ten years – Quashed by the High Court on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused named in the FIR – On appeal, held: 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 – State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society and the offender is prosecuted – 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 – Offence u/s. 306 of abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence – s.307 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 u/s. 306 would fall in the same category – An FIR u/s. 306 cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else – Thus, the impugned orders of the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The issue whether the criminal miscellaneous applications filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could have been allowed and an FIR under Section 306 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, is answered in negative. [Para 25][308-C-D]
1.2 Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 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 Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking. In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal proceedings. However, interference would only be justified when the complaint did not disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. [Paras 27, 29][308-F; 309-AB]
1.3 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.P.C. 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 CrPC 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. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the 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 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. [Paras 37, 38][313-D-G]
1.4 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. [Para 39][314-A-B]
1.5 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. [Para 40][314-C-D]
1.6 In exercise of power under Section 482, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. [Para 49][322-A]
1.7 The criminal proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 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. Section 307 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 IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 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 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 impugned orders of the High Court are set aside. [Paras 50, 51][322-B-E]
M. Arjunan v. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9 SCR 703; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey (2019) SCC Online 1786; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540; Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781 : [2008]
9 SCR 943; Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar AIR 1990 SC 494 : (1990) Supp SCC 686 : [1989] Suppl. SCR 165; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others (1983) 1 SCC 1 : [1983] 1 SCR 884; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh (2010) 11 SCC 226 : [2010]
8 SCR 423; Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttrakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 : [1988] 2 SCR 930; Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 : [2007] 10 SCR 847; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471 : [1980] 1 SCR 1071; Kapil Agarwal & Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma & Others (2021) 5 SCC 524; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 : [2012]
8 SCR 753; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)
9 SCC 466 : [2014] 4 SCR 1012; State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (2014) 15 SC 29 : [2013]
12 SCR 563; CBI v. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 : [2015] 10 SCR 277; State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376 : [2015] 9 SCR 772; Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another (2017) 9 SCC 641 : [2017] 10 SCR 12; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 688 : [2019] 2 SCR 864; Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another (2020)
3 SCC 736 : [2020] 3 SCR 707 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.