Gujarat High Court quashed FIR and related proceedings in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations where parties settled and the complainant confirmed settlement before the court, relying on Supreme Court precedents.
FIR No. 11191030200035 of 2020 and consequential proceedings quashed qua petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R/CR.MA/12609/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12609 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12999 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12981 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12996 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12909 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14814 of 2020
========================================================
NIYATIBEN UDAYANBHAI BAROT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================================== Appearance:
MS SRUSHTI A THULA(5014) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. KITTY S MEHTA(7025) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 18/02/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/12609/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022
of FIR being C.R. No. 11191030200035 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station, West, Ahmedabad City on 07.08.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.MA/12609/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022
affidavit filed by the original complainant and whereas the complainant having remained present has also confirmed the fact of settlement. In that view of the matter in the considered opinion of this Court permitting the FIR and its proceedings arising therefrom to continue any further will be an exercise in futility. This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) to arrive at the above conclusion.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compounded matrimonial dispute and settlement between parties warrant quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Whether settlement reached by an accused bride/a ward of husband after her marriage necessitates quashing the acquittal proceedings against her.
Whether settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry harassment is sufficient ground to quash the FIR under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶26
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶26
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors.Relied on¶26
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009 (1) GLH 190
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶26
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Niyatiben Udayanbhai Barot
State of Gujarat
Kinnariben w/o Pruthavbhai Barot
Nikhil S. Kariel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
