Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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