2010 Pinki & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

– for short) seek quashing of FIR No.171 dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala for the offences under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioners and the complainant Smt. Manshi Chawla (respondent No.2) who has Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [2] deposed an affidavit dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P2) in regard to the compromise. The complainant Manshi Chawla (respondent No.2) lodged the FIR (Annexure P1) alleging that she does domestic work. Her husband Sushil Kumar Chawla (deceased) did private job at Shop No.5 of Sham Lal @ Sammi (petitioner No.2) situated at Green Market, Rajpura Town. Rahul (petitioner No.3) worked with the husband of the complainant. On 23.4.2010, the husband of the complainant went for work where he did his job at the shop. The owner of the said shop namely Sham Lal @ Shammi (petitioner No.2) and Rahul (petitioner No.3), it is alleged, had illicit relations with a woman named Pinki (petitioner No.1). Pinki (petitioner No.1), it is alleged, used to compel the husband of the complainant to have illicit relations with her and used to harass him. In this regard, the husband of the complainant had talked with the complainant several times. The husband of the complainant did not want to do any wrong acts with Pinki (petitioner No.1) but the petitioners in collusion with each other started torturing him and blackmailed him regarding his illicit relations with Pinki (petitioner No.1). On 23.4.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant made a telephone call to her husband for some work but his phone was switched off. She then made a telephone call to her brother-in-law (devar) namely Raj Kumar informing him that the phone of his brother Sushil Kumar Chawla (deceased) was switched off. She asked him to go to the shop and give her message to him. When the Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [3] brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant reached at the shop, then the petitioners and the husband of the complainant were taking cold drinks together. At that time, the husband of the complainant asked the brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant that he should go back to his house and he would be coming. At about 8.30 p.m., Rahul (petitioner No.3) came to the complainant and said that her husband’s health had deteriorated and he was admitted in Chamaru Hospital. The complainant along with her brother-in-law (devar) reached Chamaru Hospital where she came to know that her husband had been taken to Guru Nanak Hospital. They both reached Government Hospital where they came to know that the husband of the complainant namely Sushil Kumar Chawla had died. By inquiring into the matter, the complainant came to know that a woman named Pinki (petitioner No.1) in collusion with Rahul (petitioner No.3) and Sham Lal @ Shammi (petitioner No.2) had tortured and blackmailed the husband of the complainant to do wrong acts with her. It is because of the torture by the above said persons that her husband was constrained to take poisonous substance and he died. The death of the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 had been caused due to torture and blackmail done by Sham Lal @ Shammi (petitioner No.2), Rahul (petitioner No.3) and Pinki (petitioner No.1). It was requested that legal action be taken. After the FIR was registered on 23.7.2010 and the present petition was filed on 31.8.2010, Pinki (petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [4] No.1) died on 3.10.2010. Her death certificate (Annexure P3) has been placed on record. The present petition, therefore, survives only qua Sham Lal @ Shammi (petitioner No.2) and Rahul (petitioner No.3). The complainant-Smt. Manshi Chawla (respondent No.2) has deposed an affidavit (Annexure P2) wherein she has stated that she had got registered the FIR against the petitioners. It is stated that when her husband died, she was under a shock and therefore, got registered the FIR (Annexure P1) against the petitioners as she had lost control of her temper; besides, there was some misunderstanding. In fact the petitioners were not responsible for the death of her husband and they were not guilty. It is also stated that no one was responsible for the death of her husband nor the petitioners were responsible. The doubt in her mind had been cleared and she did not want to further proceed with the case. Admittedly the challan in the case has not been filed. In respect of an offence under Section 306 IPC, it may be noticed that a reading of the FIR does not show that there is willful act or omission or intentionally aiding or instigating the deceased to commit the act of suicide by the petitioners. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, the appellant therein was charged with having abetted commission of suicide by his brother-in- law (sister’s husband). The prosecution story was that there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife who at the material time was staying with the appellant therein. The deceased went to the appellant to bring back Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [5] his wife. There was a quarrel between them and the deceased came back alone. The deceased told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words. Two days later, the deceased was found dead. The autopsy which was conducted on that day itself, revealed that the death was due to ‘asphyxia’ as a result of hanging, within 24 hours. The deceased also left a suicide note which showed his disturbed state of mind but otherwise, he blamed the appellant for the suicide. The appellant’s petition for quashing the charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. The Supreme Court observed that the Courts below had erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25.7.1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased “to go and die”. It was held that the deceased was a frustrated man and reading of the suicide note suggested that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. It was held that the ingredients of “abetment” were totally absent to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC. It was further observed that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of the material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the deceased Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [6] and he alone, and none else, who was responsible for the death. In Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1775 there was no averment in the alleged suicide note that the accused had caused any harm to the deceased or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to him. There was no reference of any act or incidence in the alleged suicide note whereby the accused had committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. It was held that it cannot be said that the accused had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for suicide of deceased. Therefore, in order to make out a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC it is liable to be shown that the accused had abetted, intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In the present case from a reading of the FIR it is not shown that the accused-petitioners had intentionally aided, abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Besides, there is no suicide note in the case. The prosecution case primarily is that the deceased-husband of the complainant was fed up with the fact that he was being compelled to have some wrong and illicit relations with Pinki (petitioner No.1) and therefore, he being fed up had committed suicide. According to the allegations in the FIR that the deceased had taken poisonous substance. The learned State counsel has submitted that the death in the case was due to poison. However, the said circumstance by itself does not show that the petitioners had abetted, Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [7] intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In any case, the matter has now been compromised. In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1034 (P&H) in a case registered for the offence under Section 306 and 511 IPC, it was held that once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the prosecution case and the FIR was quashed. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. In Chand Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 123 (P&H) in a case under Sections 306/34 IPC, the complainant filed an affidavit that he had lodged the FIR under some misunderstanding, which had been cleared and he did not want to proceed with the case further. The FIR and the consequent proceedings in pursuance thereof were quashed by this Court. The dispute in the present case is somewhat personal in nature inasmuch as the husband of the complainant died by consuming poison. It is primarily his wife who is the aggrieved person and is the complainant in the present case. It cannot be from the facts and circumstances be said that the petitioners had abetted, intentionally aided or instigated the husband of the complainant to commit suicide. Besides, the matter has been amicably resolved. The complainant/respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by her counsel and she has reiterated her statement that she has compromised the Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [8] matter with the petitioners and that she does not want to pursue the FIR as her misunderstanding has been cleared. Besides, she has stated that she has compromised the matter of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. It may also be noticed that the challan in the case has not so far been filed and the case is still pending investigation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the case. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 429 (SC) it was observed by the Supreme Court that Court should ordinarily quash criminal proceedings where parties have entered into a compromise and no public policy was involved. It was held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise having been effected as there was no possibility of conviction. Besides, it was held to be advisable that in disputes where question involved was purely personal in nature and no public policy was involved, the Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. Moreover, keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.171 dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala for the offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC and all the subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between Crl. Misc. No. M-25662 of 2010 [9] the parties by way of affidavit dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P2), which has been deposed by the complainant-Smt. Manshi Chawla (respondent No.2); besides, neither party shall have any claim against the other in respect of the death of the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2. December 22, 2010 (S.S. SARON) JUDGE