Criminal proceedings for serious offences like dowry death cannot be quashed on the grounds of compromise, as public interest necessitates accountability for heinous acts.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Shri Anuruddh Prasad, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA -I and Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. By means of the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet no. 4-A of 2006 dated 21.06.2006 filed in respect of FIR No. 11 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar and the cognizance and summoning order dated 25.09.2006 by which the accused was summoned to face the trial, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 05.02.2006 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant, his parents, wife and brother Arvind Kumar Yadav, stating that the elder sister of the complainant had got married to the younger brother of the applicant on 28.06.2003. After her marriage, all the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle. In the evening of 05.02.2006, when the complainant went to the matrimonial home of his sister, he found that his sister had been burnt to death. On enquiry, no one told him anything.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offences under Section 4 98-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that the applicant was absconding. Since the applicant was absconding, the trial continued only against the other co-accused persons, viz. the applicant’s father, mother, brother and wife, and all of them were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court by means of a judgment and order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the Additional Session Judge (FTC) Court No. 2, Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No. 116 of 2006.

5. On 03.07.2025 the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 have entered into a compromise stating that after conviction, the applicant’s parents and younger brother have died. It is stated in the compromise that the opposite party no. 2 came to know later that the applicant had no role in the alleged incident and that he had gone out on the day of the incident and had never made any demand of dowry.

6. The judgment and order of the trial court states that the father of the deceased was examined as PW 1 and he has supported the prosecution version and has stated that the applicant also harassed the deceased for dowry and was involved in killing her. The opposite party 2, who is the complainant was examined as PW 2 and he also stated that the applicant had also demanded dowry and harassed the deceased for dowry, like all the other co-accused persons. Copies of statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been brought on record alongwith a supplementary affidavit.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, the trial court found the accused persons guilty of the offences under Sections 4 98-A, 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has convicted them.

8. The opposite party No. 2 has filed a short counter affidavit supporting the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the basis of compromise.

9. The learned AGA– I has opposed the application and has stated that the offence under Section 304B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is a heinous offence which cannot be quashed merely on the ground of compromise.

10. In r