Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

High Court Quashes FIR in Dowry Harassment Case, Citing Amicable Settlement Between Parties”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Gujarat, led by Honourable Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, has quashed an FIR in a dowry harassment case, underscoring the importance of amicable resolution in marital disputes. The case titled Vikas Dineshbhai Sukhadiya versus State of Gujarat involved allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1860.

During the proceedings on January 25, 2024, it was brought to the court’s attention that both parties had resolved their differences amicably. The original complainant filed an affidavit stating no objection to quashing the proceedings. Emphasizing the resolution, Justice Suthar observed, “the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s” (Para 8).

The court relied on the principles established in several Supreme Court rulings, including Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, to determine the appropriateness of quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court noted, “The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution” (Para 9), highlighting the necessity of careful judicial discretion in such matters.

The decision to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings was based on the mutual settlement, which rendered the continuation of the trial a futile exercise. The court, in its wisdom, decided to secure the ends of justice by allowing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., thereby quashing FIR No. 11191008220309 of 2022 and Criminal Case No. 5372 of 2022.

Date of Decision: 25/01/2024

VIKAS DINESHBHAI SUKHADIYA VERSUS  STATE OF GUJARAT

 

Similar News