Mr. Sagar Dangi, Advocate & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra’ 2025 AIR SC 3823 & Ors.

Mr. Sagar Dangi, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SURYA PARTAP SINGH : , J . (Oral)

#1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.338 dated 15.06.2016, under Sections 306/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Meham, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise between the parties, dated

26.04.2026, (Annexure P-2).

#2. Since the FIR has been lodged for an offence of abetment to commit suicide, vide order dated 26.05.2026, it has been observed that the bar as enshrined in the case of ‘Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.’ 2022(16) SCC 117 is not attracted in the present case. With regard to above, the order dated 26.05.2026 reads as under:- CRM-M-26964-2026 (O&M) 2 “7. A perusal of record shows that the FIR of this case has come into being at the instance of ‘Ajmer’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It has been alleged by the above-named complainant that he and his brother ‘Sonu’ were agriculturists, and that his above-named brother ‘Sonu’ aged 27/28 years was unmarried. According to complainant, they had agricultural land in their village, but after the death of his father, his uncle ‘Satbir’ and aunt ‘Vinod’ used to pick-up quarrel, with them, on trivial matters, and therefore, he (complainant), his brother (Sonu) and other family members shifted to Bhiwani. As per complainant, three months before the incident, his brother ‘Sonu’ had visited the village for taking care and irrigation of his fields, but on that occasion, too, the quarrel was picked-up with ‘Sonu’ by his uncle ‘Satbir’.

#8. It has been further alleged by complainant that his uncle ‘Satbir’, aunt ‘Vinod’ and their son ‘Love’ used to extend threats to the complainant and his brother ‘Sonu’. In the backdrop of abovementioned facts, it has been alleged by the complainant that 5-6 days ago, his brother had visited their native village to take care of his agricultural work and he was scheduled to stay there for 8-10 days, but on 15.06.2016, his uncle ‘Jai Bhagwan’ informed him that ‘Sonu’ had committed suicide. As per complainant, because of the taunts and quarrel by ‘Satbir’, ‘Smt. Vinod’ and their sons ‘Pankaj’, ‘Love’ and ‘Kush’, his brother ‘Sonu’ had committed suicide.

#9. A perusal of abovementioned contents of the FIR show that in the present case, there are very vague, inconsistent & inconclusive allegations against the petitioners qua the fact that they had committed the offence of abetment to commit suicide. There is not even a single whisper in the FIR that the petitioners ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing on record to show that any such situation was created by the petitioners that the deceased was left with no option, but to commit suicide. Thus, it is apparent that essential ingredients CRM-M-26964-2026 (O&M) 3 meant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are not made out in the instant case.

#10. The abovementioned observations find supports from the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Abhinav Mohan Delkar V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors’ 2025 AIR SC 3823, ‘Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. V/s State of Gujarat’ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679, ‘Prakash & Ors. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr.’ SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023 and ‘Ude Singh & Ors. V/s State of Haryana’ (2019) 17 SCC 301.

#11. In view of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that the bar as prescribed in the case of ‘Daxaben’ (supra) is not attracted in the present case.”

#3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully.

#4. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated

26.05.2026, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise.

#5. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 05.06.2026 has been received. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

#6. As far as the offence, allegedly committed by the petitioners, is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, is non- compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are CRM-M-26964-2026 (O&M) 4 analysed in the backdrop of relevant principles of law, it transpires:- i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature; ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioners; iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity; iv) that the action of petitioners do not have a serious impact on the society; and v) vi) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties. that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court; vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means, viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings; ix) x) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed; that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy; xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness; xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender; xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

#7. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has jurisdiction, by CRM-M-26964-2026 (O&M) 5 virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C, to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

#8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.”

#9. In view of the afore-referred principles of law, and the report of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak, regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent No.2, this Court finds that quashing of FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed. CRM-M-26964-2026 (O&M) 6

#10. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR No.338 dated 15.06.2016, under Sections 306/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Meham, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed dated 26.04.2026 (Annexures P-2) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed

#11. of. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

09.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable