2022 (7) TMI 1550 - SC - Indian Laws

Quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC based on settlement - whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Accused Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been allowed and an FIR Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 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? - HELD THAT - Even though, the inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be exercised for the asking. In DR. MONICA KUMAR ANR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. ORS 2008 (5) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT , this Court held that inherent jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. As held by this Court in STATE OF A.P. VERSUS GOURISHETTY MAHESH AND ORS. 2010 (7) TMI 1208 - SUPREME COURT , the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that the accusation would not be sustained. Offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code of abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non-compoundable offence. Of course, the inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings. 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. In exercise of power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the Accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased - An FIR Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, since the High Court, in exercise of its power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the Accused and the informant had been compromised. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC based on settlement.
2. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
3. Whether the High Court should have recalled its order dated 20th October 2020.
4. The role and rights of the informant versus the rights of the deceased's spouse.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC based on settlement:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could quash an FIR under Section 306 IPC, which pertains to abetment of suicide, on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant. The Court held that:
- Section 306 IPC is a grave, non-compoundable offence with a punishment of up to ten years.
- Crimes like abetment to commit suicide are serious and have a significant impact on society, hence they cannot be quashed based on a settlement.
- The Court emphasized that quashing such FIRs on the basis of settlement would set a dangerous precedent, allowing financially strong offenders to escape punishment by settling with informants.

2. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC:
The Supreme Court discussed the scope and limitations of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC:
- Section 482 CrPC allows the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
- The inherent power must be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, only in exceptional cases.
- The Court cited various precedents, emphasizing that the inherent power should not be used to quash proceedings for serious offences based on settlements, as these offences impact society at large.

3. Whether the High Court should have recalled its order dated 20th October 2020:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not recalling its order dated 20th October 2020, which quashed the FIR based on a settlement:
- The High Court did not address whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC.
- The High Court's decision was based solely on the settlement between the accused and the complainant, without considering the rights of the deceased's spouse.
- The Supreme Court noted that the High Court has inherent power to recall orders passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The role and rights of the informant versus the rights of the deceased's spouse:
The Supreme Court highlighted the distinction between the rights of the informant and the rights of the deceased's spouse:
- The informant in this case was a cousin and employee of the deceased, whereas the appellant was the deceased's wife.
- The Court emphasized that the wife of the deceased has a greater interest in prosecuting the accused persons charged with abetting her husband's suicide.
- The High Court's failure to hear the deceased's wife before quashing the FIR was a significant oversight.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court. The Court clarified that FIRs under Section 306 IPC cannot be quashed based on settlements, as such offences are serious and impact society. The observations made in the judgment should not be construed as comments on the merits of the contentions of the respective parties.