Simply Mentioning Harassment in Suicide Note Insufficient to Invoke Section 306 IPC,” Rules High Court
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 306, 506, and 120-B IPC against Iqbal Singh Sandhu and others. The judgment, delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, underscores the absence of specific allegations and prima facie evidence necessary to constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC. The decision was also influenced by a compromise reached between the parties involved.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by Paramjit Kaur, whose husband, Harnek Singh, committed suicide on July 15, 2018, using his licensed gun. The FIR alleged that Iqbal Singh Sandhu and others had harassed the deceased, leading him to take his own life. A suicide note left by Harnek Singh accused Iqbal Singh Sandhu of mental harassment and financial deceit. However, a prior financial settlement between the parties and a subsequent compromise played a crucial role in the court’s decision to quash the FIR.
The court noted that the allegations in the FIR and the suicide note were vague and lacked specific details about how and when the harassment occurred. “Simply by mentioning in the suicide note that the accused harassed the deceased and is responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC,” Justice Deepak Gupta observed.
The judgment emphasized that for an offense under Section 306 IPC to be made out, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding the commission of suicide. The court referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, to highlight that there must be an “active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option.”
The petitioners presented a compromise agreement and a receipt indicating a financial settlement between Harnek Singh and Iqbal Singh Sandhu. The court found that this settlement, along with the lack of specific allegations, justified quashing the FIR. “Quashing of the proceedings would serve the solitary purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent the abuse of the process of the law,” the judgment stated.
The court relied on various precedents to elucidate the principles governing the quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offenses. It noted that while heinous and serious offenses generally should not be quashed based on a compromise, the specific circumstances of each case must be considered. The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., which allows for quashing in cases predominantly civil or personal in nature, provided they do not have a serious societal impact.
Justice Deepak Gupta remarked, “The allegations set out in the FIR or the suicide note do not constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the petitioners should not be compelled to undergo the rigmarole and ordeal of trial.”
The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against Iqbal Singh Sandhu and others underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of legal processes. By emphasizing the necessity of specific allegations and prima facie evidence, the judgment sets a significant precedent for similar cases involving allegations of abetment to suicide. The ruling also highlights the court’s willingness to consider compromises in non-heinous offenses, ensuring justice is served without unnecessary harassment of the accused.
Date of Decision: May 6, 2024
Iqbal Singh Sandhu And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors
