Kartik Luthra And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2704 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

      Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1292 of 2023

Kartik Luthra and others                   .............Petitioners

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents


Present:-
             Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State of
             Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 and 2.
             Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent
             no.3.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

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.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Learned State counsel also admits that it is a

no injury case.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Compounding Application (IA) No.1 of 2023

stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.09.2023 Sanjay