- In Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal Upadhyay v. the State Of Gujarat (2022), Justice Ilesh Vora quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498(a), 323, 294(b), 506(1), and 114 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and dismissed an order of conviction passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a marital dispute, after noting that the offenses involved were of non-serious and personal nature.
- In this case, the impugned FIR was filed, alleging that four days into the marriage, Respondent No. 2 (complainant) was subjected to physical abuse, mental abuse, and harassment for payment of dowry by Accused No. 1 (applicant), following which the complainant was compelled to leave her marital home and filed the FIR. Accused No. 1 and 2 were sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment and a fine under the aforementioned provisions by the Trial Court after examining the witnesses. Additionally, in default of payment of the fine simple imprisonment for an additional month was awarded to the accused.
- Aggrieved by this, an appeal was made by the accused to the Appellate Court, which dismissed the accused's sentence. Simultaneously, during the proceedings of the aforementioned appeal, an instant application for quashing the impugned FIR was filed by the accused, where he contended that the dispute had already been settled amicably. Thus, there was no need for the criminal proceedings to prolong. However, the APP argued that this power could not be exercised under Section 482 of the Code once the trial court awarded the conviction and the appeal was pending before the Appellate Court.
- Section 482 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure discusses the preservation of the inherent powers of the High Court.
- Section 498-A IPC safeguards married women from mistreatment at the hands of their husbands or family. A three-year prison sentence and a fine may be imposed for the same.
- Section 294 of the IPC stipulates that anybody who sings, recites, or utters any obscene song, ballad, or words to the irritation of others in a public place will be penalized.
- Section 506 (1) IPC deals with simple cases of criminal intimidation, which is punished by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
- Section 323 of the IPC punishes wilful infliction of harm. Hurt typically refers to non-fatal offenses that do not result in the death of anybody.
- Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code states that anytime any person who is absent and would be liable to be punished as an abettor is present when the act or crime for which he would be punishable as a result of the abetment is performed, he is assumed to have committed such act.
- In Ramgopal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67811], the proceedings were quashed after considering the nature of the offense, the parties' amicable settlement, and the complainant's voluntary acceptance of the nullification of proceedings.
- In another significant case, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors 2019 5 SCC 688, it was confirmed that under Section 482, the Court might quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses of essentially those which are of civil nature.
- In another noteworthy case, Gian Singh vs. the State of Punjab (2012 10 SCC 303), the Apex Court had held that the HC has the power to quash criminal proceedings if it believes that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and that the possibility of conviction of the accused seems bleak.
- After hearing the parties and referring to the aforementioned judgments, the criminal proceedings and the impugned FIR were quashed and dismissed by the Hon'ble HC of Gujarat.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
