Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Himanshu Mehta and Others - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 17 of 2024 With Compounding Application IA No.1 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Bora, D.A.G. with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder, Mr. R.K. Chauhan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mutual consent and amicable settlements in cases involving personal disputes can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
QUASHING - FIR - The court quashed FIR No.0294 of 2022 under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the importance of mutual consent in resolving disputes and the court's discretion in allowing such settlements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR filed against them under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, citing an amicable settlement with the informant, who was their daughter-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had reached a mutual agreement and that the informant expressed her desire not to proceed with the case, indicating a resolution of the conflict.
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed based on the amicable settlement between the parties and the informant's wish to withdraw the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes are valid and can lead to the quashing of FIRs, especially when the informant does not wish to pursue the case further.
Result: The petition was allowed, and FIR No.0294 of 2022 was quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The petitioners Himanshu Mehta, Prem Singh Mehta, Deepa Mehta, Manish Mehta, Sunita and Sudhanshu Mehta seek quashing of FIR No.0294 of 2022, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station ITI, District- Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. A joint compounding application has been filed along with the affidavits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the respondent no.3, the informant, and the petitioner no. 1, Himanshu Mehta, were married on 11.12.2021, but after marriage, the informant was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. She as abused with obscene remarks. The FIR is quite in detail.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties; the parties have decided to stay separate.

5. All the petitioners except the petitioner no.5, Sunita, are present before the Court. The petitioner no.5, Sunita, joined the proceedings through video conferencing. The respondent no.3, the informant, is also present before the Court. They all are identified by their respective counsel. They have accepted the compromise.

6. The Court particularly asked the respondent no.3, the informant. She would submit that she does not want to proceed with the proceedings of the case.

7. Having considered all the attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR No.0294 of 2022, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station ITI, District- Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed.

9. Compounding Application No. 01 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document