Abetment Of Suicide | 'Court Answerable To Deceased', Can't Quash FIR On Basis Of Compromise: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the FIR lodged for abetment to suicide cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between parties, observing that where the primary victim is deceased, "the Courts must act as if it is directly answerable to the deceased and such cases be approached with the highest sense of responsibility and gravity ensuring that the rule of law is upheld."

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "While legal heirs (such as family members) may have procedural rights (e.g. to claim compensation, file appeals or participate in proceedings), they do not stand in the same position as the direct victim. They cannot unilaterally settle criminal liability in serious cases, as their rights are limited to procedural aspects, not substantive exoneration of the accused."

The Court further said that the law recognizes a societal interest in protecting individuals from harm and ensuring accountability. "Thus, the legal system does not merely focus on individual grievances but also considers the wider implications for public safety and justice. "

"In offences resulting in death such as those under Sections 302, 304-A, 304-B, 306 IPC etc., the deceased is the primary victim. Because the harm suffered is inevitable, no compromise by legal heirs can substitute the voice of the deceased," it added.

The judge opined that by allowing legal heirs to settle such cases unilaterally, the justice system would fail in its duty to hold perpetrators accountable, since the crime does not affect only the family but has wider ramifications for society at large.

The Court was hearing plea seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 306, 506, 34 IPC on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that "there exists a fundamental distinction between cases arising from private disputes and those involving heinous offences, where the criminal act has ramifications beyond the immediate parties."

"These crimes cannot be trivialized or nullified through a private settlement. Such indiscriminate quashing of FIRs in serious criminal cases based on a compromise could set a dangerous precedent leading to the misuse of the criminal law wherein false complaints may be filed for extortion, or influential persons may evade liability by coercing or inducing a compromise," it added.

Justice Kaul highlighted once a criminal case is initiated, it is no longer a matter between the complainant and the accused. "Instead, the State assumes the responsibility of prosecution. The complainant only has a right to be heard in ensuring justice but does not have absolute discretion to withdraw charges in serious non-compoundable offences," the judge said.

The Court observed that, the State bears the duty to prosecute offenders and ensure that justice is served in the interest of society, even if the complainant later chooses to settle.

Who is the “Victim” in Cases Involving Death?”

The Court explained that while legal heirs (such as family members) may have procedural rights (e.g. to claim compensation, file appeals or participate in proceedings), they do not stand in the same position as the direct victim.

"They cannot unilaterally settle criminal liability in serious cases, as their rights are limited to procedural aspects, not substantive exoneration of the accused," it added.

The Court said that law recognizes a societal interest in protecting individuals from harm and ensuring accountability. Thus, the legal system does not merely focus on individual grievances but also considers the wider implications for public safety and justice.

The Court elucidated that, in offences resulting in death such as those under Sections 302, 304-A, 304-B, 306 IPC etc., the deceased is the primary victim. Because the harm suffered is inevitable, no compromise by legal heirs can substitute the voice of the deceased.

"By allowing legal heirs to settle such cases unilaterally, the justice system would fail in its duty to hold perpetrators accountable, since the crime does not affect only the family but has wider ramifications for society at large," the bench opined.

Referring to “Parens Patriae”, the Court said that the doctrine empowers the State and the Courts to act as guardians of those who are unable to defend themselves, including deceased victims. "Therefore, it is not for the accused and the complainant to negotiate, especially when the primary victim has lost his life."

Referring to Daxaben v. State of Gujarat [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642], to underscore that orders quashing FIRs or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused.

Justice Kaul said, given the binding precedent, any Coordinate Bench of the High Court that has taken a contrary view, with respect, must be regarded as having acted per incuriam, and therefore, would not hold authoritative value. 

Consequently, the Court rejected the argument that the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench stating that "the Court cannot disregard a binding judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court under the guise of judicial reconsideration."

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

Title: Paramjit Kaur & others v. State of Punjab & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 128

Click here to read/download the order