Apex Court Says Offence Under Section 306 IPC Cannot Be Quashed On The Basis Of Settlement

The Supreme Court, on July 29, set aside an order of the Gujarat High Court, whereby a revision application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed and FIR under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was quashed.

Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed thus, that offence under Section 306 of the IPC is a heinous offence and therefore it cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant.

Facts

The appellant was the wife of the deceased who committed suicide. Cousin of the deceased lodged an FIR against the appellant for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. 

As per the contents of the FIR, the deceased left a handwritten note, in which it had been claimed that the deceased had been cheated of over 2 crore rupees. The deceased had made several requests to the accused but they did not return the money. It is in under these circumstances that the deceased felt compelled to take the drastic step.

Decision

The Court noted that whether abetment of suicide is made out or not will be ascertained by the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court observed that the High Court did not examine the whether offence was made out and quashed the FIR as the accused and complainant had reached a settlement.

The Court stated that even an indirect incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute offence under Section 306 IPC.

The Court cited its judgment in Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P.  (2008) 8 SCC 781, which had held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.

The Court further observed, “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.”

It was further stated that, “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.”

The Court said that quashing cases regarding offence of abetment to suicide on the basis of compromise/settlement would set a dangerous precedent where complaints would be lodged for oblique motives to extract money from the accused.

“This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose,” said the Court.

The Court affirmed that an informant had no right to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature which impacts society.

Hence, the High Court order of quashing was set aside.