Kartik Luthra And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner seek quashing of FIR No.187 of 2023, dated 11.03.2023, under Sections 307, 313, 377, 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. A joint compounding application has also been filed supported by the affidavits.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 (“the informant”) were married on 13.11.2016 and thereafter, the informant was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry. There have been allegations that, in fact, in order to kill the informant and her child, they were starved. There are various other allegations in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably; the petitioner and the respondent no.3 (“the informant”) have decided to stay separate and obtained a divorce by mutual consent; it is a matrimonial discord. Therefore, the matter may accordingly be decided. It is also submitted that it is a no injury case in so far as the offence under Section 307 is concerned.

Learned State counsel also admits that it is a no injury case.

In the matters under Section 307 IPC generally compounding is not entertained at the stage of investigation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019)5 SCC 688. In para 15.4 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 307 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and in such matters it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. In the instant case, admittedly there has been no injury.

The petitioners and the respondent nos.3 (“the informant”), duly identified by their respective counsel, have joined the proceedings through video conferencing. They verified the compromise. They have accepted that they have amicably settled the dispute. The Court particularly asked the informant, she would submit that they have settled the dispute amicably and she does not want to proceed with the case any further.

Having considered 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.

The instant criminal writ petition is allowed. FIR No.187 of 2023, dated 11.03.2023, under Sections 307, 313, 377, 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

Compounding Application (IA) No.1 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.