Dangerous to close criminal cases on monetary settlement: SC

SC allows appeal by widow against quashing of suicide case

The Supreme Court has on Friday held that an FIR lodged for abetment of suicide cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else, as it would set a dangerous precedent where complaints would be lodged to extract money.

A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian said 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 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 no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society," the bench said.

Read | SC asks fresh challengers of Places of Worship Act to intervene in pending plea

The top court allowed an appeal filed by Daxaben against the Gujarat High Court's order allowing quashing an FIR related to the suicide of her husband, Shaileshkumar Chimanbhai Patel, on March 1, 2020. The FIR here was lodged by a man, claiming to be cousin of the deceased, who took the extreme step after having been cheated of over Rs 2.35 crore by the accused.

The High Court, however, quashed the FIR, in view of a settlement between the accused and the complainant.

The top court noted the HC did not go into the issue of indirect incitement and also it did not grant a hearing to the wife of the deceased.

Finding that the HC had erred in its decision, the bench said an informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious or heinous nature, which impacts society.

Also Read | SC dismisses review plea against One Rank-One Pension judgement

"In criminal jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is 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 is maintained in society. It is for the State to prosecute offenders," the bench said.

"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," the bench added.

The court further said the criminal proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction (of the HC) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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.