High Courts can't quash abetment of suicide case citing monetary settlement with relatives of deceased: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that criminal proceedings in serious offences like abetment of suicide cannot be quashed by High Courts merely based on a financial settlement between the accused and the relatives of the deceased person [Daxaben vs State of Gujarat and ors]..A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian reasoned that offences like attempt to murder and abetment of suicide are crimes against society and not an individual alone. "An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else," the Court ruled..The appellant in the present case was the wife of a deceased who had died by suicide. The accused had allegedly cheated the husband of a huge financial sum leaving the deceased in a financial crunch. The Gujarat High Court had quashed the first information report against the accused relying on a settlement between the accused and a purported cousin of the deceased, who was also the original complainant. Further, the plea of the wife seeking a recall of that order for not being heard while quashing the FIR, was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the top court. .The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not laid out whether it had the jurisdiction to quash a criminal complaint in a suicide case, also a non-compoundable offence, relying on settlement between the parties.The Bench emphasised that in criminal jurisprudence the position of a complainant is that of informant who is entitled to a hearing, and not one who can withdraw a complaint towards a serious offence.The Court also said that hearing a cousin of the deceased will not dispense with the requirement to hear the wife of the deceased. "The wife of the deceased would have greater interest than cousins and employees in prosecuting accused persons charged with the offence of abetting the suicide of her husband," the Court said.The top court reasoned that offence of abetment of suicide is one that falls within the ambit of crimes against society, and a complaint in this regard cannot be quashed based on compromises. "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 this regard, reliance was plased on its decision in Laxmi Narayan, where the offence of attempt to murder was not allowed to be quashed. The Bench explained how the High Court's order could 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," the Court added.It, therefore, allowed the appeal and held that the criminal proceedings could not have been nipped in the bud by the High Court. .Advocates Priank Adhyaru and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal appeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy and advocates Ankur Mathur, Vivek Mathur and Ivan appeared for the respondents.[Read Judgment]