In a recent legal case involving allegations of abetment to suicide, the court’s analysis delves into the nuances of non-compoundable offences and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The case raises important questions about the court’s role in preventing the abuse of process and ensuring justice in serious criminal matters. Let’s explore the detailed legal analysis presented by the court in this complex case.
Facts
- The Appellant is the wife of the deceased, who is said to have committed suicide on 1 March 2020 by consuming poison in his office.
- The deceased was allegedly cheated by the accused of Rs. 2,35,73,200.
- An FIR was lodged by Pinakin Kantibhai Patel, claiming to be a cousin of the deceased and an accountant working for him, with Himmatnagar Police Station naming 12 accused persons for abetting the deceased’s suicide.
- The FIR mentioned a hand-written note left by the deceased, in which he called upon the accused to return his money.
Also Read: Analysis of Financial Statements as Acknowledgment in Limitation Act Case
Arguments
- Ms. Shenoy argued on behalf of the Respondents
- Alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC was discussed
- The deceased was in acute financial crisis leading to the suicide
Also Read: Interpretation of Corporate Guarantor under IBC
Analysis
- Allegation of incitement to suicide is a requirement
- Direct or indirect act of incitement must be alleged
- Wife of the deceased must be given a hearing
- Criminal proceedings in case of non-compoundable offences can be quashed under certain circumstances, even if there is a settlement between parties.
- High Court has the inherent power to recall judgments/orders if passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice.
- In serious non-compoundable offences, the informant/complainant’s right is limited to ensuring justice through conviction and punishment.
- Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is meant to prevent criminal proceedings from being misused for harassment.
- Abetment to commit suicide is a serious, non-compoundable offence falling in the same category as heinous crimes.
- High Court can intervene under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process.
- The interest of society in punishing offenders may outweigh the personal views of the victim and the offender, especially in grave offences.
- Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and only when justified by specific tests laid down in the section.
- Heinous crimes that impact society cannot be quashed based on compromise between offender and victim.
- Certain crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity, and abetment to suicide are not private in nature and cannot be quashed through compromise.
- Court should not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint under Section 482, except in rare cases of clear frivolity or no offence disclosed.
- High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised with circumspection in exceptional cases.
- Prosecution cannot be quashed on compromise for serious offences that fall under crimes against society.
- Orders quashing FIRs related to serious offences based on agreement with the complainant can set a dangerous precedent.
- The position of the complainant in criminal jurisprudence is that of an informant.
- The High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the court process.
- The High Court found it had the inherent power to recall a judgment passed without jurisdiction or without giving a fair hearing.
- The High Court erred in not considering jurisdiction to quash a complaint for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC based on a settlement.
- Financially strong offenders could exploit settlements to evade punishment for grave offences like murder or rape.
- The High Court did not address whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC.
- The power to quash criminal proceedings on compromise depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
- An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be quashed based on financial settlement with the informant or other parties.
- Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise between accused and informant was not necessary to examine the disclosure of offence under Section 306 IPC.
Also Read: Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The appeals were allowed.
- The impugned orders of the High Court were set aside.
- The prayer of the Appellant for recalling the order dated 20 October 2020 was declined in the common order dated 29 July 2021.
Case Title: DAXABEN Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2022 INSC 771)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001061-001084 / 2022
