High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajneesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 September 2024 · Citation: (2024) 09 UK CK 0154

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed/ Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 540 Of 2024, Compounding Application IA No. 1 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 330 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the Chargesheet dated 11.05.2022 (Case Crime No.113 of 2022, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun), Cognizance/ Summoning Order dated 14.09.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.806 of 2023, State Vs. Rajneesh Kumar, Under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun (“the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case, 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.

The case is based on an FIR lodged by the lodged by the respondent no.2 (“the informant”), according to which, she and the petitioner were married on 29.10.2020, but after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry by the petitioner and others. It is this FIR in which after investigation, chargesheet was submitted and the proceedings of the case have been initiated.

4.

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that parties have settled the dispute amicably.

5.

The petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 joined the proceedings through video conferencing, as identified by their respective counsel. They have accepted the compromise.

6.

The Court particularly asked the informant. She would submit that she and the petitioner have settled the dispute amicably. Now they have decided to stay separate.

7.

Having considered the nature of offence and 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 chargesheet dated 11.05.2022, Cognizance/ Summoning Order dated 14.09.2023, as well as the entire proceedings of the case, are hereby quashed.

9.

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