Uttarakhand High Court
Gaurav Kumar And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 November, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1453 of 2023
Gaurav Kumar and Others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Bora, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Vishal Kumar Nautiyal, Advocate for the respondent
no.3
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioners Gaurav Kumar, Indra Singh,
Norati Devi, Ravi Kumar, Smt. Saloni Rani and Subham seek
quashing of Case Crime No.814 of 2023, under Sections 498-
A, 323, 504, 506 and 377 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Laksar, District
Haridwar, with related reliefs.
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, Gaurav Kumar, were
married on 07.05.2023. Various gifts and dowry were given in
the marriage, along with the cash, but the petitioners were
not happy with the given gifts. They would taunt and harass
mentally and physically the informant; she was abused also;
the petitioner no.1, Gaurav Kumar, would beat her up and
has demanded a Swift Car and Rs. 5 Lakhs in cash. There
was a compromise in between the parties, but the demand
continued. The FIR also records that, in fact, the informant is
a lawyer, and the petitioners would ask her to leave her
practice. There are allegations with regard to the sexual
orientation of the petitioner no.1, Gaurav Kumar as well.
4. On 18.10.2023, when the matter as taken up,
on behalf of the petitioners, a statement was given that if
given the opportunity, the parties may arrive at a settlement.
On that date, the Court issued notice to the informant to the
limited extent of exploring the possibility of amicable
settlement between the parties.
5. Today, the petitioner no.1, Gaurav Kumar and
the respondent no.3, the informant, are present before the
Court. Having heard, at this stage, it appears that this matter
should not be sent for mediation. The Court proceeds to
decide the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the perusal of the FIR does not reveal any
offence; the allegations are not believable.
7. Learned counsel for the informant would submit
that the averments in the FIR may be examined during
investigation. At this stage, it may not be examined.
8. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of
offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there
are compelling circumstances to do so.
9. The petitioners are all family members. The
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the
petitioner no.1 Gaurav Kumar, respectively. Petitioner nos. 4
and 6 are the brothers of the petitioner no.1 Gaurav Kumar
and petitioner no.5 is the sister in law of the petitioner no.1,
Gaurav Kumar. This is stated during the course of hearing.
10. There are allegations of demand of dowry, and
for that reason, it is alleged that the victim was harassed and
tortured. There are other allegations as well, which would
definitely find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the
case may be. In these proceedings, this Court may not
examine the truthfulness and credibility of the averments, as
made in the FIR. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there
is no reason to make any interference, at this stage. The
petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. The petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.11.2023
Ravi Bisht
