Case Title: Daxaben vs State of Gujarat
According to the Supreme Court, an FIR filed under Section 306 IPC (suicide attempt) cannot be dismissed on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 CrPC. The bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian stated that "abetment of suicide" also falls within the category of heinous and serious offences and should be considered as a crime against society rather than the person alone.The accusation against the defendants was that they defrauded the deceased of Rs. 2,35,73,200 and forced him to commit suicide since he was in a desperate financial situation. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the FIR under Section 306 IPC filed against the accused in light of a settlement between the accused identified in the FIR and the complainant—a relative of the deceased—in a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC. The wife of the deceased's attempt to have the verdict recalled was likewise denied. If a settlement between the complainant and the accused named in the FIR had been reached, could the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and an FIR under Section 306 of the IPC for aiding the suicide, which carries a ten-year prison sentence, have been allowed to proceed? The bench made the initial observation that Section 306 of the IPC's offence of aiding in suicide is a serious, non-compoundable offence. The court noted the following things: Crimes against society cannot be stopped via negotiation. “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 society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.”
Otherwise, it would set a dangerous precedent.
“Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to the 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 extracting 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. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498- A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose”.
According to the law, an informant has no right to rescind the complaint of a non-compensable offence of a terrible, serious, or heinous nature that has an impact on society.
“In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is 16 lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order are maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non-compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. 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.”
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, a three-judge panel held that violations of Section 307, IPC fell within the category of heinous and severe offences and should be viewed as crimes against society as a whole rather than just against the individual.
"On a parity of reasoning, an offence under section 306 of the IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, caregivers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question of whether the FIR, in this case, discloses any offence under Section 306 of the IPC, since the High Court, in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised", the court said while allowing the appeal.