IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Arpit Tiwari and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1711 of 2021
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Compounding - Criminal Law - The court allowed the quashing of FIR and charge sheet based on the amicable settlement between the parties, considering the nature of the offence and the compromise between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR and charge sheet based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The victim did not want to proceed with the case, and the parties had settled the dispute amicably.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the criminal writ petition based on the compromise between the parties and the victim's decision not to proceed with the case.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of FIR and charge sheet for offences under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, based on the amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the offence, the compromise between the parties, and the victim's decision not to proceed with the case in allowing the quashing of the FIR and charge sheet.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and the entire proceedings of the case pending in the court, based on the amicable settlement between the parties and the victim's decision not to proceed with the case. The compounding application was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J. ) :
The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.420 of 2021, dated 30.07.2021, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. A joint compounding application has also been filed supported by the affidavits.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, according to the petitioners charge-sheet has also been submitted, therefore, challenge has also been made to the Charge sheet dated 26.04.2022 in Case Crime No.420/2021, for the offences punishable under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 P.S Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar; the cognizance and summoning order dated 08.09.2022, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby the petitioner no.1 has been summoned U/s 376, 417, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act and petitioner nos.2 to 5 have been summoned under section 504 of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Case No.3610 of 2022, State vs. Arpit Tiwari and others (“the case”) and the entire proceedings of the case.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, the respondent no.4 (“the informant”) and the petitioner no.1 were working in a company. They came closed to each other and fell in love. They decided to marry. Under the pretext of marriage the petitioner no.1 established physical relations with the victim. Their engagement were also solemnized, but FIR states that subsequently, the petitioner no.1 and his family members and other petitioners demanded dowry and did not agree for marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably; now the victim does not want to proceed with the case; the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.4 have decided to stay separate.
6. This case pertains to offence under Section 376 IPC. An offence of rape may not be permitted to be compounded. It is a very heinous offence. But, the facts of the instant case, is quite distinct. According to the FIR itself, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.4 (“the victim”) came close to each other; they were major; they fell in love; they promised to marry and, in fact, their engagement was also solemnized, but subsequently, the marriage could not be performed. There are allegations of demand of dowry.
7. Having considered the kind of allegations levelled, the nature of the offence and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the criminal writ petition may be decided on the basis of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. The petitioner nos.1, 2 & 4 and the respondent no.4 (“the informant”), duly identified by their respective counsel, are present before the Court; the petitioner nos.3 and 5, duly identified by their counsel, have joined the proceedings through video conferencing. All the petitioners and the respondent no.4 have verified the compromise. They have accepted that they have amicably settled the dispute. The Court particularly asked the respondent no.4, she would submit that she want to move forward in her life and does not want to proceed with the case now.
9. The instant petition is allowed. FIR No.420 of 2021, dated 30.07.2021, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act”), Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar; Charge sheet dated 26.04.2022 in Case Crime No.420/2021, for the offences punishable under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 P.S Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar; cognizance and summoning order dated 08.09.2022, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby the petitioner no.1 has been summoned U/s 376, 417, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Act and petitioner nos.2 to 5 have been summon
AI
The court may allow the quashing of FIR and charge sheet based on an amicable settlement between the parties, considering the nature of the offence and the compromise between the parties.
The institution of marriage should be saved unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, and an amicable settlement between the parties can be a strong reason to quash a FIR.
The court established that mutual consent and amicable settlements in cases involving personal disputes can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Seeking quash of FIR – Amicable settlement between parties - After compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be a futile exercise, compromise should be accepted and the proceedings....
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties, as per the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and established legal principles.
The court can quash proceedings of a criminal case based on an amicable settlement between the parties.
The court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes and the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to secure the ends of justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.