Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of Abetment to Suicide FIR Based on Settlement: Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29th July 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 653

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a criminal case for abetment of suicide be quashed simply because the accused and the complainant reached a settlement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court of Gujarat had quashed an FIR under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on a settlement between the accused and the complainant, a cousin of the deceased. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that such serious offenses cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement, especially when the victim’s wife was not a party to the settlement. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with the opinion authored by Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The case revolves around the suicide of Shaileshkumar Chimanbhai Patel, who allegedly consumed poison in his office on March 1, 2020. Following his death, Pinakin Kantibhai Patel, a cousin and accountant of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Himmatnagar Police Station, naming 12 individuals as accused of abetting the suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The FIR was based on a suicide note left by the deceased, which detailed financial disputes with the accused individuals.

The suicide note mentioned that the deceased had been cheated and listed several individuals to whom he had given money, including Anil Mathur, Pramod Dadhichi, and Vijaysinh Bhati, among others. The note also stated that Vijaysinh Bhati owed him a significant amount of money (Rs. 1,47,00,000) and had taken his car, which had not been returned. The FIR alleged that the accused had cheated the deceased of a total of Rs. 2,35,73,200, leading to severe financial distress that drove him to suicide.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Gujarat initially allowed the Criminal Revisional Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and quashed the FIR based on a settlement between the accused and the complainant (cousin of the deceased). Subsequently, the appellant, the wife of the deceased, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications seeking to recall the order dated 20th October 2020. The High Court dismissed these applications, stating that the original informant (cousin) had settled the dispute, and the appellant was merely a witness. The High Court held that it was not necessary to recall the order and that the appellant could pursue separate proceedings against the original informant if she felt aggrieved.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. It states:

“306. Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Supreme Court has consistently held that to constitute abetment of suicide, there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. This means that the accused must have intended to instigate or aid the deceased in taking their own life. Mere harassment or financial disputes are not sufficient to establish abetment unless there is evidence that the accused’s actions compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The court has also clarified that instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage someone to do an act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR based on a settlement between the accused and the complainant (cousin of the deceased) without hearing the wife of the deceased.
• The appellant contended that the wife of the deceased has a greater interest in prosecuting the accused than the cousin or an employee.
• The appellant emphasized that an offense under Section 306 of the IPC is a grave, non-compoundable offense that cannot be quashed based on a settlement.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR because the dispute had been settled between the parties.
• The respondents relied on the settlement reached between the accused and the original complainant (cousin), asserting that it was a valid basis for quashing the FIR.
• The respondents contended that the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide were not met in the allegations, and there was no direct or indirect act of incitement.

The respondents cited cases such as 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], Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618], and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another [(2010) 12 SCC 190] to support their arguments that there must be a clear mens rea and a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could have been allowed and an FIR under Section 306 of the 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with abetment of suicide.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Saves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court cited the cases presented by the respondents to reiterate the legal position on the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide. However, the court held that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the fact that it was not a private dispute.
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court had the inherent power to recall a judgment but erred in not recalling the order dated 20th October 2020.
• The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 9 SCC 466], State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [(2014) 15 SC 29], CBI v. Maninder Singh [(2016) 1 SCC 389], State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Vasanthi Stanley [(2016) 1 SCC 376], Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another [(2017) 9 SCC 641], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688], and Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another [(2020) 3 SCC 736] to emphasize that serious offenses impacting society cannot be quashed based on settlements.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Gravity of the Offense: The Court emphasized that abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is a serious, non-compoundable offense that has an impact on society. It cannot be treated as a private dispute that can be resolved through a settlement.
• Public Interest: The Court highlighted that in cases of serious crimes, the interest of society in prosecuting offenders outweighs the private interests of the parties involved. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained, and offenders are brought to justice.
• Rights of the Victim’s Family: The Court noted that the wife of the deceased had a greater interest in prosecuting the accused than the cousin or an employee. She should have been given a hearing before the High Court quashed the FIR.
• Abuse of Process: The Court was concerned that allowing settlements in serious cases would set a dangerous precedent, where offenders could avoid prosecution by buying off complainants. This would undermine the deterrent effect of the law.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them as they would undermine the legal framework and the public interest in prosecuting serious offenses. The court emphasized that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in cases involving grave offenses.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: an FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the accused and the complainant. The Court emphasized that such offenses are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. The Court also noted that the wife of the deceased had a greater interest in prosecuting the accused and should have been heard before the High Court quashed the FIR.

The court stated:

“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 Court further held:

“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 Court also observed:

“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.”

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice V. Ramasubramanian concurring.

Key Takeaways

• Serious Offenses Cannot Be Quashed Based on Settlements: FIRs for serious, non-compoundable offenses like abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the accused and the complainant.
• Public Interest Prevails: In cases of serious crimes, the interest of society in prosecuting offenders takes precedence over private settlements.
• Victim’s Family Must Be Heard: The victim’s immediate family, particularly the spouse, has a right to be heard before any decision is made to quash an FIR in a serious criminal case.
• Inherent Powers of High Court: While High Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., these powers must be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in cases involving grave offenses.
• Deterrent Effect of Law: Allowing settlements in serious cases would undermine the deterrent effect of the law and could lead to abuse of the legal process.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment reinforces the principle that serious criminal offenses are not private disputes and should be prosecuted in the interest of society.
• It clarifies that High Courts should be cautious in exercising their inherent powers to quash FIRs for serious offenses based on settlements.
• It emphasizes the importance of hearing the victim’s immediate family before making decisions that affect their rights to seek justice.

Directions

The SupremeCourt set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals. The case was remanded to the appropriate court for further proceedings.