Abetment of suicide: Wife of the deceased have greater interest than cousins or employees in prosecuting the accused persons.

        The High Court had reportedly refused to entertain the prayer of the Appellant for recalling the previous order on the ground that the settlement has been arrived between informant and accused persons and the applicant/wife is merely a third party and a witness in the FIR and opportunity of hearing has been given to the original informant, cousin brother of the deceased.

                                                              

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, headed by Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian,  in its judgment held that the wife of the deceased would have greater interest than cousins and employees in prosecuting the accused persons charged with the offence of abetting the suicide of her husband.

The fact of the case here is that the husband of the Appellant, Shaileshkumar Chimanlal, proprietor of Jigar Transport,  committed suicide after leaving a handwritten note wherein the accused persons were named with allegation to have cheated the deceased to the sum of huge amount taken as loan. The accused had cheated the decease of more than 2 crores, that is why the deceased in acute financial crunch was constrained to take his own life.

After coming to know the suicide, the complainant, who is also cousin cum employee of the deceased, filed an FIR in police station.

In the FIR, it was alleged that the deceased had been making phone calls to the accused persons calling upon them to return his money, but they did not do so. The accused had cheated the deceased of Rs.2,35,73,200/-. The accused was in acute financial crunch and, therefore, constrained to take his own life.

The High Court by an impugned order quashed the FIR against the accused person, thereafter the appellant filed  Criminal Revision Application for recalling the order of quashing FIR

The Appellant, widow of deceased, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of  present Appeal against the impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad quashing the FIR and also against the dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous Application for recalling the said order of quashing the FIR.

Ms. Shenoy argued on behalf of the Respondents by referring to numbers of recent case. She argued that to constitute alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence.

She cited the case of M. Arjunan vs. State , Represented by its Inspector of Police(2019) 3 SCC 315, where it was held that there should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to intigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

She also cited Ude Singh & Ors vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301. It was observed,  in case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.

The question of mens rea in such case would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended more than harassment of snap show of anger, a particular case fall short of the offence abetment of suicide – she pointed out as observed in the above case.

FINDINGS BY SUPREME COURT

The Court summarised that the High Court did not address the question, whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC or not which is a grave non-compoundable offence. But instead quashed in view of a settlement between the accused and the complainant.

The High Court reportedly erred in declining the prayer of the Appellant for recalling its order of quashing the FIR u/S CrPC, which was passed without hearing her only because the original informant/complainant, a cousin brother and an employee of the deceased had been heard.

The list of previous decisions of the Supreme Court, it was relied in the present case

1.       Monica Kumar (Dr) vs. State of U.P (2008) 8 SCC 781.

          Supreme Court held, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC 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.

2.       Kapil Agarwal & Ors. vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others (2021) 5 SCC 524.   Most recently it was held observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 482 of the CrPC is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to degenerate into weapons of harassment.

3.       Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

          It was discussed the circumstances in which the High Court quashes criminal proceedings in case of non-compoundable offence, when there is a settlement between the parties and enunciated the principles

“58. Where  the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in  its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court.

The High Court can exercise the inherent power under Section 482 only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and such power would be justified when the complaint did not disclose any offence or patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The exercise by the High Court under section 482 would not be justified relating to the complaints that involve grave and serious offences only on the basis of an agreement with the complainant as that would set a dangerous precedent.

Even an indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC – Supreme Court.

The High Court had reportedly refused to entertain the prayer of the Appellant for recalling the previous order on the ground that the settlement has been arrived between informant and accused persons and the applicant/wife is merely a third party and a witness in the FIR and opportunity of hearing has been given to the original informant, cousin brother of the deceased.

According to the Supreme Court as held in the case of State of  Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttrakhand (2013 11 SCC 673, the High Court has to be cautious while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

The High Court has rightly found that it had the inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person judicially affected by the judgment and/or order. But erred in declining the prayer of the appellant for recalling its previous order passed without hearing the wife of the deceased only because the original informant/complainant and also an employee of the deceased had been heard.

The question that arose in the present appeal that came up for consideration was  whether the High Court had jurisdiction to quash a criminal complaint under Section 306 of the IPC which is grave non-compoundable offence, entailing imprisonment of ten years, on the basis of settlement between parties.

The offence under Section 306 of the IPC is a grave, non-compoundable offence. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings. And 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. Before exercising its  power under Section 482 of CrPC, 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 serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and complainant/victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society” – the Court said.

The Supreme Court states:

In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of complainant is only that of the informant and once an FIR 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.

The top Court referred to the case of  Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 9 SCC 466 wherein,  this Court held tin case of heinous and serious offences, which are generally to be treated as crime against society, it is the duty of the State to punish the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime.

One of the  many principles laid down in the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors (2019) 5 SCC 688 states, while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused, the conduct of the accused and  how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.

Lastly the Apex Court made an opinion that the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC only because  there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the accused and the complaint and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased.

The offence under Section 306 IPC falls on the same category of Section 307 which is heinous and serious offence. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else – Supreme Court.                 

Therefore the appeal of the Appellant/wife of the deceased was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court  quashing the FIR in view of the settlement between the accused named in the FIR and the complainant on the strength of affidavit of settlement of disputes, signed by the  complainant and other family members of the deceased were placed on record.

 

Also Read:

If litigant withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.”

Coram:

Justice  Indira Banerjee And Justice V. Ramasubramanian

Case: Daxaben Versus The State of Gujarat & Ors

Date of Judgment: 29.08.2022

         

Click here to read full judgment

 

 Also Read:

Unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the defendant or, the Court orders him to do so, no adverse inference can be drawn that he is not willing to perform part of contract.