Menu
case-law, lady justice, justice

DAXABEN V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2022)

Case Comment, Publications

CITATION – SLP (Crl) No. 1132-1155 of 2022

DATE OF JUDGMENT – 29th July, 2022

COURT – Supreme Court of India

APPELLANT – Daxaben

RESPONDENT – The State of Gujarat

BENCH – Justices Indira Banerjee and V.Ramasubramanian

FACTS

  1. The matter is related to the FIR filed against the accused on a charge of abetment to suicide[1] as the deceased was forced to commit suicide  due to an extreme financial crisis brought on by the theft of accused of RS. 2,35,73,000 from the deceased.
  2. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the FIR because a settlement was done b/w the complainant (a cousin of the deceased) and the accused. And this settlement was presented in a petition filed by the accused.[2].
  3. The deceased’s wife tried to get the verdict back, but it was rejected.
  4. According to the defendant, to assert the allegations of incitement to suicide based on section 306 of the Penal Code, there must be an accusation of either direct or indirect act of provocation to commit the offence of suicide.
  5. The HC did not even take into consideration the fact that the allegations in the FIR constituted a crime under section 306 IPC or not.
  6. The FIR was dismissed and quashed due to the agreement between the complainant and the defendants mentioned in the FIR.
  7. When the HC refused to address the issue then the apex court itself decided that it was not necessary to take into consideration the issue of whether there was a direct or indirect act of abetment to the offence of aiding the suicide.
  8. It is enough to note that even a submissive act of enticement to commit suicide would be an offence.[3]
  9. It was claimed in court that the parties’ disagreement had been settled peacefully.
  10. Further, affidavits of Settlement of Disputes signed by the complainant and members of the deceased’s family were entered into record in support of this statement.[4]

ISSUES

  1. Whether an FIR for a serious crime like abetment of suicide can be quashed on the basis of agreement between the parties?
  2. Whether the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by the accused under section 482 of the CrPC, based on an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, could have led to the quashing of the FIR filed under section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide?

CONTENTION

DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT

  1. The defendant claims that the court lacks jurisdiction over the case because the suspected crime does not fall within the scope of the state’s criminal laws.
  2. They further argue that the complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to prove the allegations and proceeding without substantial evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice.

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

  1. On the other hand, the plaintiff claims that it is the duty of the State to prosecute offenders for severe and grave crimes that affect the society.
  2. Permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the complaint can lead to abuse of the criminal justice system, and it is essential to safeguard the court’s independence in deciding whether to proceed with the case.[5]
  3. The plaintiff emphasizes that the needs of the victim should be protected and justice should be served.

RATIONALE

Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian’s bench stated that inciting suicide is a heinous and serious crime that should be treated as a crime against society as a whole, not just victims. The court rejected the agreement between the accused and the family of the victim.

Aiding and abetting suicide, is a serious non – compoundable crime[6]. Of course, the inbuilt power of the high court is broad and can even be exercised to abolish criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offenses, to protect the end of justice and to stop mistreatment of the practice of court[7]. However, before exercising this power, the High Court must carefully and properly consider the nature and seriousness of the offense. Dreadful or grave crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society cannot be set aside on the basis of a conciliation between the criminal and the complainant or the victims. [8]

The bench referred to various earlier decisions of the court such the court held that inbuilt jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC has to be exercised carefully, vigilantly and cautiously and only when such exercise is justified under the tests specifically laid down in the provision itself.[9]

The court held that if it is a question of serious or heinous crimes, which are usually considered as crimes against the whole society, then it is the duty of the State to punish the criminal. Therefore, even in the case of reconciliation, the interest of the criminal and the victims would not be taken into consideration because it is in the interest of the society that criminals should be punished so that others don’t even dare to commit such crime.[10]

The court observed that the purpose of section 482 of CrPC is to ensure that criminal proceedings do not become weapons of harassment.[11]

The court held that, in exercising jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily inquire whether the evidence is credible or whether there is a reasonable possibility that the charge would not be accepted.[12]

DEFECTS IN LAW

The victim was cheated of more than 2.35 crore due to which he committed suicide and an FIR was registered against the criminals. Judgments where the settlement has been made between the complainant and the victim for a serious or heinous crime would set a dangerous precedent.

Moreover, rich criminals would avoid punishment even for heinous and serious crimes like murder, rape, bride burning, etc by offering bribes to the complainants and reaching a settlement with them.

It is therefore, extremely important to recognize that incitement to suicide, being such a heinous crime, cannot be quashed by mere settlement or agreements between the parties.

INFERENCE

It is given under section 306 of the IPC that when someone commits suicide on being provoked by someone else than the abetment of suicide occurs. Main ingredients of this provision are: the commission of suicide, provocation of such suicide and relation between the instigation and the suicide. It is often believed that defendants can easily avoid criminal charges for this type of crime. Therefore the rules relating to abetment charges must be revised so that perpetrators cannot evade the law, shape cases to suit their own interests and escape punishment.

Chandrawati Chouhan

Rajasthan School of Law for Women, Jaipur

[1] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S- 306, No 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

[2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S-482, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)

[3] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S-306, No. 45, Act of Parliament, 1860 (India)

[4]LAWYERSCLUBINDIA,

http://www.layersclubindia.com/judiciary/section-306-ipc-abetment-of-suicide-a-henious-offence-cannot-be-quashed-based-on-compromise-supreme-court-6130.asp, (last visited on September 17, 2023)

[5] Lawminds, http://lawminds.co.in/case-briefing/case-no-29-daxaben-vs-the-state-of-gujarat-2022/, (last visited on September 18, 2023)

[6] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, S-306, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

[7] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S-482, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)

[8] IndianKanoon, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/176494694/, (last visited on September 18, 2023)

[9] Monica Kumar v. State of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781

[10] Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 9 SCC 466

[11] Kapil Agarwal & Ors v. Sanjay Sharma & Ors (2021) 5 SCC 524

[12] State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourishetty Mahesh (2013) 11 SCC 673