Uttarakhand High Court
Arpit Tiwari And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 September, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1711 of 2021
Arpit Tiwari and others .............Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
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, 2 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.
3
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 4 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 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 and the entire proceedings of the case pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 3rd, Haridwar, is hereby quashed.
5
10. Compounding Application (IA) No.1 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.09.2023 Sanjay