Summary
A transporter took his own life, leaving a note naming persons who had not repaid large sums to him. His cousin and accountant lodged an FIR under Section 306 IPC against twelve accused. The Gujarat High Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC on a settlement between the accused and the informant. It later refused the widow's application to recall that order, which had been passed without hearing her. The Supreme Court allowed her appeals. The High Court had never considered whether a grave, non-compoundable offence could be quashed on a settlement. Hearing a cousin-employee did not dispense with hearing the widow, who had a greater interest. Abetment of suicide, like the offence under Section 307 IPC, is a crime against society. A Section 306 FIR cannot be quashed on any financial settlement with the informant or relatives. Both High Court orders were set aside.
Issues
- Whether an FIR under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a monetary settlement between the accused and the informant.
- Whether the High Court should have recalled its quashing order, which was passed without hearing the deceased's widow.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent power to quash on a compromise is available for offences that are predominantly civil, but not for heinous or serious offences against society (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Laxmi Narayan). The power also covers recalling an order passed without hearing an affected person. (¶¶ 21, 22, 27, 37, 38, 41, 46, 47, 50)
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment of suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence punishable with up to ten years. By parity with Section 307, it is a crime against society, so proceedings cannot be quashed on settlement. Even indirect incitement can amount to abetment. (¶¶ 8, 16, 22, 37, 38, 50)
Held
- The High Court has inherent power to recall an order passed without jurisdiction or without hearing a person prejudicially affected by it. It erred in refusing recall because the informant, a cousin and employee of the deceased, had been heard. That did not dispense with hearing the widow, who had a greater interest in the prosecution. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- Heinous or serious offences that affect society cannot be quashed on a compromise between the offender and the complainant. Crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity and abetment of suicide are not private or civil in nature. Quashing them on a settlement would invite complaints made to extract money and let financially strong offenders go free. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39)
- In criminal law the complainant is only an informant. Once the State takes up the prosecution, the case is between the State and the accused, and the informant has no right to withdraw a complaint of a grave non-compoundable offence. (¶ 40)
- An FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot be quashed on any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians or anyone else. Because the High Court quashed the FIR only on the compromise, the Supreme Court did not examine whether the FIR disclosed an offence. (¶¶ 15, 16, 50)
Result
Appeals allowed. Both High Court orders, the one quashing the FIR under Section 306 IPC on the settlement and the one refusing recall, were set aside, without any observation on the merits.