Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Himal Tewari And Others. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 12 December, 2023
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
12TH DECEMBER, 2023
C-482 No. 2372 OF 2023
Shri Himal Tewari and others. ........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another .......Respondents
Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel,
appears for the applicants.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned counsel
for respondent No. 2.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court
made the following
JUDGMENT :
1. All the applicants and respondent No. 2 appeared
through V.C. and this Court interacted with each of the
applicants and respondent No. 2 and all of them are
also identified by their respective counsels.
2. By the instant Application, preferred under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants are challenging the
Charge-Sheet No. 102 / 2012 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the summoning /
cognizance order dated 14.02.2023. Apart from this,
the present applicants are also challenging the entire
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 492 of 2023 State vs.
Himal Tewari and others.
3. The instant Application, preferred under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., is supported with the Compounding
Application and the Compounding Application is also
supported with the affidavits of each of the applicants
and respondent No. 2.
4. Applicant No. 1 married with respondent No. 2 in
the year 2002 and since there were some differences
between them, consequently, a First Information
Report was lodged by respondent No. 2 bearing FIR No.
118 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, and 504 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. Several matrimonial disputes arose between the
applicants and respondent No. 2, and due to these
differences, ultimately the matter went to the Supreme
Court, and two SLPs being SLP(C) Nos. 19266/2012
and 20200/2012 were preferred by respondent No. 2
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein on
12.02.2023, the following interim order was passed-
"The parties are present in person. They are not
averse to exploring the possibilities of an amicable
settlement. They submit that in order to create an
ideal atmosphere conducive for such a settlement
proceedings in all pending matters between the
parties could be stayed for a limited period. A list
of proceedings pending in different courts between
the parties has been placed, which include the
following:
1. Petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure
Code, pending in the court of Shri K.S. Mohi,
Judge, Family Court, Saket, New Delhi - titled as -
Rupali Tewari vs. Himal Tewari - CC No. 51/2011.
2. Petition under Section 13 (1) (1a), Hindu
Marriage Act, filed by Himal Tewari, pending in the
court of District Judge, Gurgaon - titled as - Himal
Tewari vs. Rupali Tewari - HMA 540/2011.
3. Guardianship Petition No. 27/2011, pending in
the court of District Judge, Gurgaon - titled as -
Himal Tewari vs. Rupali Tewari.
4. Suit for declaration for Permanent and
Mandatory Injunction - titled as - Himal Tewari vs.
Rupali Tewari - CS No. 379/2011.
5. COCCP P No. 1880/2012 in Cr. No. 3709/2012,
pending before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana - titled as - Himal Tewari vs. Rupali
Tewari.
6. COCCP P No. 1833/2012 in Cr. No. 3309/2012,
pending before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana- titled as - Himal Tewari vs. Rupali
Tewari.
7. Execution Petition arising out of Guardianship
Petition No. 27/2011, - titled as - Himal Tewari vs.
Rupali Tewari, Gurgaon.
8. FIR No. 118/2008, under Section 498-A/406,
Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nehru Colony,
Dehradoon, Uttrakhand.
In view of the submissions made at the Bar
and the willingness of the parties to attempt an
amicable settlement, we direct that further
proceedings in all the aforementioned cases shall
remain stayed till 8.3.2013.
List on 8.3.2013 [Friday] at 3.30 p.m."
5. As it appears from the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.02.2013 there are
total eight case pending in different Courts. Thereafter,
a settlement was arrived between applicant No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 at Gurgaon, Haryana on 06.01.2014.
This settlement was arrived with the following terms:-
"1. That party of the First Part in order to secure
the party of the Second Part agrees to transfer his
share in the property bearing Flat No. D-22,
Ground Floor, Suncity Township, Sector-54,
Gurgaon, Haryana in favour of party of the Second
Part and undertakes to bear the expenses as
would be required to effect the said transfer.
2. That the party of the First Part further agrees to
pay household expenses presently @ Rs. 50,000/-
per month (needless to say that the same is liable
to be revised as per the inflation and income of
the party of the First Part), to the party of the
Second Part towards household expenses on or
before 7th day of every month.
3. That the first party will take care of all financial
expenses for education and upbringing of the child
-Diya.
4. That one set of the party of the Second Part is
lying with her mother in-law and some parts of
istridhan have been sold due to compelling
circumstances; however, the party of the First
Part undertakes that in lieu thereof, he will re-
construct the jewellery for the party of the Second
Part which she has lost or had to be sold.
5. That the party of the First Part has got an
employment opportunity at Mumbai and
considering the welfare of the minor the party of
the Second Part has given notice to her employers
to shift to Mumbai (subject to Diya getting
admission in a school, equivalent to her present
standard of school preferably in South Mumbai)
and the Party of the First Part therefore volunteers
to pay towards her personal expenses a sum of
Rs. 45,000/- per month to the party of the Second
Part, till she regains employment at least
equivalent to her present salary i.e. Rs. 7.5 Lakhs
per annum, in case the party of the Second Part
does not get an equivalent employment, the party
of the First Part shall pay the amount falling short
of Rs. 45,000/- to the party of the Second Part.
6. That it has been mutually agreed between the
parties that both will not put the minor child-Diya
under any pressure or discomfort her against her
will, in any way that would be a deterrent to her
growth and upbringing.
7. That both the parties further agree that they
shall not cause any hindrance / interference in
each others way for taking care of their respective
old and ailing parents (mother in both the cases).
8. That the parties hereto have therefore agreed
to withdraw all cases / proceedings / complaints
pending in different courts / forum between the
parties as has been detailed in the order dt.
12.02.2013 in SLP (C) Nos. 19266/12 & 20200/12
and for this the parties would appear before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on the notified date for
recording of their consent to quash all such
proceedings pending in different courts.
9. That upon signing of this Agreement /
Compromise Deed, all complaints as may have
been filed by both the parties against each other
and their respective families, shall be treated as
withdrawn / closed and if any pending shall be
withdrawn by the respective parties and their
family members.
10. That it is mutually agreed between parties to
this Agreement / Compromise Deed executed
between them that they shall abide by and be
bound by the respective clauses and sub-clauses
recorded in this Agreement / Compromise Deed.
11. This Deed of Compromise executed by the
parties on the 6th day of January, 2014 in the
presence of following witnesses."
6. The amicable settlement entered between the
parties was placed before the Supreme Court and
Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration
the terms and conditions of the amicable settlement
entered between the parties on 6th January, 2014
passed the following order on 10.01.2014:-
"The parties have entered into an amicable
settlement, terms whereof has been set out in
writing and filed in this Court. Learned counsel for
the parties submit that the parties will have no
difficulty in taking further steps pursuant to the
said settlement so that all other pending matters
are concluded/disposed of in light of the said
settlement.
In light of the said settlement nothing further
for consideration in these SLPs which are disposed
of in terms of the said settlement. Needless to say
the parties shall take steps in aid of the
settlement arrived at between the parties."
7. In the Interim Order dated 12.02.2013 passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a reference has been given
at Serial No. 8 of FIR No. 118 of 2008, pursuant to
which the proceedings have been initiated which is
subject matter of the present Application preferred
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. Applicant No. 1-Smt. Himal Tewari, applicant No.
2- Smt. Manorama Tewari, applicant No. 3-Smt.
Poonam Trivedi, applicant No.4-Smt. Neelam Khan, and
applicant No.5-Shri Ashraf Khan are present through
V.C. Respondent No.2-Rupali Tewari is also present
through V.C. along with her husband (applicant No.1).
9. This Compounding Application is also supported
with the affidavit of each of the applicants and
respondent No. 2.
10. This Court has gone through the terms and
conditions of the Settlement, the cognizance of which
has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
further this Court also interacted with each of the
applicants and respondent No. 2 and after interaction,
all the parties submit that there are no disputes in
between the parties and respondent No. 2 is now living
with applicant No. 1 happily.
11. Per contra, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief
Holder for the State submits that offences under
Sections 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
are not compoundable, however, he fairly submits that
since the allegations appear to be personal in nature,
these offences may be compounded in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another
(2012) 10 SCC 303. Apart from this, after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the
cognizance of which has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the
Compounding Application deserves to be allowed.
12. Consequently, the Compounding Application is
allowed. The proceeding of Criminal Case No. 492 of
2013 State vs. Himal Tewari and others, wherein the
applicants are facing trial in respect of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the
Court of Vth Additional Senior Civil Judge / ACJM
Dehradun, District Dehradun are quashed.
13. Accordingly, the present C-482 application is also
disposed of.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 12th December, 2023
Rathour
