Punjab & Haryana High Court: FIR in Abetment to Suicide Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Basis of Compromise

In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the issue of quashing a First Information Report (FIR) in cases of abetment to suicide based on a compromise between the accused and the deceased's family. The court emphasized that in such serious offenses, the primary victim is the deceased, who cannot participate in any compromise, and thus, the legal system must act as a representative of the deceased to uphold justice.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, presiding over the case, underscored that while legal heirs may have certain procedural rights, they do not possess the authority to unilaterally settle criminal liability in serious cases like abetment to suicide. The court observed that allowing such compromises would undermine the rule of law and fail to hold perpetrators accountable, as the crime extends beyond the immediate family and has broader societal implications.

The court further elaborated that offenses resulting in death, such as those under Sections 302 (murder), 304-A (causing death by negligence), 304-B (dowry death), and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, primarily affect the deceased. Given the irreversible harm suffered, no compromise by legal heirs can substitute the voice of the deceased. The legal system recognizes a societal interest in protecting individuals from harm and ensuring accountability, focusing not only on individual grievances but also on public safety and justice.

The judgment also highlighted the potential dangers of allowing compromises in serious criminal cases, noting that it could set a precedent for the misuse of criminal law. This could lead to situations where false complaints are filed for extortion, or influential individuals evade liability by coercing or inducing a compromise. The court stressed that once a criminal case is initiated, it is no longer solely a dispute between private parties but involves the state's responsibility to uphold justice and maintain public order.

In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that FIRs in cases of abetment to suicide cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the accused and the deceased's family. The court asserted that it must act as if directly answerable to the deceased, approaching such cases with the utmost responsibility to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and justice is served.