In CRM-M-1054-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- ‘No compromise with dead man’ says P&H HC while refusing to quash FIR against woman for abetting her husband’s suicide Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill [01-04-2022]

Read Order: Neelam Devi and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Monika Rahar

New Delhi, April 1, 2022: While dismissing a petition relating to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered for abetment of suicide, on the ground of a compromise arrived at between the family of the deceased and the accused-wife, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there can be no compromise with a dead man. 

Further, while asserting that prima facie, the offence of abetment to commit suicide was made out from the allegations levelled in the FIR, the Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill held, “As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.”

The events that lead to the filing of the quashing plea was such that an FIR was registered under Section 306 of IPC by the father of the deceased Avtar Singh. It was alleged in the said FIR that the deceased committed suicide owing to the repeated allegations of adultery and infidelity, levelled against him by his wife (the first petitioner). It was also alleged that the accused-wife used to quarrel with the deceased on multiple occasions while alleging that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with another woman. 

The wife left the company of the deceased husband and went to live with her parents. As per the FIR, when the parents of the wife were approached by the deceased-husband to pacify the situation, instead of helping out the deceased, they added fuel to the fire by backing their daughter’s assertion of the alleged infidelity of the deceased. The second time when the accused-wife left the deceased and when to her paternal home, the deceased committed suicide. 

The High Court was approached to quash the present FIR on the ground of a compromise arrived at between the parties and also on merits. The Court at the very outset opined that offence under Section 306 IPC was committed which is a heinous offence.Therefore, apart from the family of the deceased being aggrieved by the commission of such suicide, the offence was broadly committed also against the deceased himself. 

“Since an offence under Section 306 IPC is alleged to have been committed which is a heinous offence and Avtar Chand had committed suicide, therefore, it is not just the Avtar Chand’s family who would be the aggrieved, but the offence is broadly committed against the deceased himself. There can be no compromise with the dead man. As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise”, said the Bench. 

Thus, the Court held that there can be no compromise with the dead man and as such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. 

Further, regarding the submission of the petitioner’s counsel on quashing of the FIR on merits, the Court was of the opinion that the raising of false accusations against the character of the deceased by his wife prima-facie attracted the offence of abetment to commit suicide. Also, the Court added that even the relatives of the wife played a part in abetting the suicide of the petitioner. And thus, finding sufficient allegations in the FIR to constitute the offence alleged, the Court was of the opinion that no ground for quashing of FIR either on basis of compromise or even on merits was made out. 

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.