The Punjab & Haryana High Court while refusing to quash an FIR in an abetment to suicide case based on compromise between the parties has observed that it is answerable to the primary victim, i.e. deceased.

The Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 306, 506, 34 IPC.

The single bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, "Another crucial legal principle at play is “Parens Patriae”. This 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. The duty to ensure that justice is done, lies with the Court and the State, not with private individuals who may settle matters for personal convenience. Furthermore, where the victim is deceased, like in the present case, 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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Navkiran Singh while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Shiva Khurmi.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the allegations in the FIR pertain to the suicide of Husband of Petitioner No.1. It was submitted that the deceased and Petitioner no.1 had been residing separately for two weeks prior to the suicide in question. The primary allegation against the Petitioner was that she had threatened to initiate legal proceedings against the deceased and his family, which, according to the learned counsel for petitioners, does not amount to instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC/106 BNSS, 2023. It was further contended that subsequent to the lodging of the instant FIR, with the intervention of respectables of the society, the Petitioners and the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. his father and brother have amicably resolved their dispute and executed a compromise deed.

In response to a pointed query of the Court as to how a compromise could be a valid ground for quashing an FIR when the primary victim i.e. the deceased is no longer alive to give consent, Counsel for the Petitioners asserted that the Coordinate Benches of the Court have in similar cases entertained Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the FIRs based on settlement between the accused and legal heirs of the deceased.

Counsel for the Petitioners therefore contended that the consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions is essential; therefore, the Courts should refrain from adopting a hyper-technical approach and instead resolve the present petition in the interest of justice, as has been done by some of the Coordinate Benches of this Court. Alternatively, it was urged that if the Court is disinclined to quash the FIR on the basis of a compromise, the matter be referred to a Larger Bench, considering the divergence of opinion within the Court regarding the applicability of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022.

On the other hand, Counsel for the State argued that the offence in question involves the loss of a human life and any compromise entered into with the legal heirs of the deceased is legally inconsequential in a case involving serious, non-compoundable offence. It was further contended that the judgement in Daxaben's case (supra) is binding and any judgement passed in contravention of this settled legal position would be per incuriam.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset argued 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," the Court observed.

It pointed out that once a criminal case is initiated, it is no longer a matter between the complainant and the accused and 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. Therefore, 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," the Court said.

It stressed that pertinently, quashing of an FIR based on a compromise is only permissible when both the accused and the direct victim are parties to the settlement.

"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 Court observed.

Mentioning “Parens Patriae” principle, the Court stated that this 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. The duty to ensure that justice is done, lies with the Court and the State, not with private individuals who may settle matters for personal convenience. Furthermore, where the victim is deceased, like in the present case, 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," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Paramjit Kaur & others vs. State of Punjab & others (2025:PHHC:034730)

Click here to read/ download Order








Click here to read/ download Order


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Manjari Nehru Kaul

Sheetal Joon