Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
Oral:
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 79 dated 13.04.2011 under Section 306 IPC, P S Adampur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 07.07.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.
The complainant is present in Court along with her counsel. She filed her affidavit stating therein that the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 07.07.2011 and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Normally, this Court would not have entertained the quashing for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different.
Respondent No. 2-complainant is the second wife of the deceased. She has levelled allegations against the real sons of the deceased. Thus, to attract the abetment under Section 306 IPC, the necessary ingredients contained in Section 107 IPC have to be proved and if the provisions of Section 107 IPC are not satisfied, no case can be said to have been made under Section 306 IPC. Before proceedings further, it would be just and relevant to reproduce the aforesaid two Sections as under:-
“Section 306 IPC – abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 107. abetment of thing – A person abets the doing of a thing who;
Firstly, instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place ini pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly, intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.
Explanation : 1. A person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to discloses voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”
There is no instigation, no intentional aid or illegal omission on the part of the petitioners in the case in hand.
In the case of Cyriacand another v. The SI of Police, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 525, Hon'bleHigh Court, in para 7 of the judgment held as under:-
“7. As per clause 'firstly' in Section 107 IPC, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing if he 'instigates' any person to do that thing. But, when can a person be said to have 'instigated' another to do an act? What is meant by the expression, 'instigate'? The word 'instigate' is not specifically defined in IPC. As per Oxford Dictionary 'instigate' means 'to goad or urge forward, to provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act.” The meaning of the word 'instigate' was considered by Supreme Court also. In RameshKumar v State of Chhatisgarh 2001(4) RCR (Crl.) 537 (SC) JT 2001 (8) SC 569, a decision cited by learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Supreme Court held “instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. As per another decision cited by counsel for petitioners in VedParaksh v State of M P (1995 Crl. L J 893), the word 'instigate' means 'to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act.'
Keeping in view the above noted interpretation of the abatement, instant is a case, none of the provisions of Section 107 IPC which could further make out a case under Section 306 IPC have been attracted in the case in hand.
Hon'blethe Supreme Court in Sanjualias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (2) RCR(Criminal) 687, while relying on the various judgments of the Apex Court held that the deceased committed suicide on the third day of the quarrel after the accused told him to commit suicide cannot be held that the suicide was direct result of quarrel. There was enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect. While coming to the said conclusion, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of RameshKumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 as under:-
“7. Section 107 I.P.C defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
12. In RameshKumar v State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstance individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
In the present case, the allegations in the FIR read as under:-
“Stated that I am resident of above address and is a house wife. On the above address is living with family for about two years. I was married Kuldeep Singh son of Sarwan Singh of Rarka Kala, PS Garaia about 16 years back. We were living a Khalwara District Kapurthala by purchasing a house for about 10-12 years. There was out dispute with Panch Shiv Kumar, Gyan Chand Panch, Mohan Chand Panch, Paramjit Singh Panch and Hardip Kaur, all resident of Khalwara, District Kapurthala and we lodged a case against them.
In these circumstances, we sold our house and started living at Chomo. Along with above persons Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukhi wife of Kulwant Singh, resident of Khalwara in connivance with each other started harassing us. They filed a SC complaint against us in PS Sadar Phagwara. They were helped by the children of earlier family of my husband namely Gurpreet Singh, Inderjit Kaur and son in law Narender Singh resident of Dhilwan. Today my husband has committed suicide by consuming some intoxicant. Action be taken against them. Sd/- Harpreet Kaur.”
In some what similar circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme CRM No. M 29852 of 2011 6 Court in the case of AmalenduPal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 2091 of 2009 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9483 of 2008, decided on 11.11.2009) held:-
“22. The prosecution, however, heavily relies on the clause thirdly of Section 107 IPC because, according to the prosecution, the appellant by way of harassment and torturing the deceased at various point of time and by marrying said Anita for the second time without the permission and against the will of the deceased, intentionally aided the commission of suicide by the deceased.
24. The perpetration of physical torture on the deceased on the day prior to the date of the incident which led the deceased to commit suicide is the prosecution case all through out. It is no where the case of the prosecution that the appellant had played any active role either in instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the deceased for denying to accept Anita as the wife of the appellant. Anita, the second wife of the appellant was brought by the appellant to his house about three months prior to the date of the incident of suicide by the deceased and therefore, bringing of the second wife to the house by the appellant cannot be said to have either incited or facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is also not the case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence led which we have scrutinized very minutely. The aforesaid contention, in our considered opinion, is far fetched and is not established by the facts of the present case. After carefully assessing the evidence on record, we find that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased.”
In that case also, the appellant was convicted under Section 498-A IPC but was acquitted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
In the present case also, there is no such allegation that the petitioners herein had instigated, provoked, incited or encouraged the husband of the complainant to commit suicide. Thus, the provisions contained in Section 107 IPC are not attracted in the instant case. As such, no offence under section 306 IPC is made out. Moreover, the parties in the present case have compromised.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of KulwinderSingh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :-
“ Theonly inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
In the case of MadanMohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
“ Weneed to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
In MadhavraoJiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.
In the present case, complainant Hardeep Kaur widow of late Kuldeep Singh filed her affidavit dated 27.02.2012, stating therein, that she is the widow of deceased Kuldeep Singh. Gurpreet Singh and Inderjeet Kaur who are the real children of deceased Kuldeep Singh from his first wife and legal heir of deceased have not been made party as they are accused in the said FIR. The complainant is the only aggrieved party and she has entered into a compromise. She has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Thus, taking into account the facts of the present case which do not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC coupled with the fact that the matter has been compromised, allowing the proceedings shall only result in wastage of time as the same is not likely to result in conviction.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 79 dated 13.04.2011 under Section 306 IPC, P S Adampur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.