Ramnik Panchal and Ors v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar 's or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

C5 2 8 No.9 9 2 of 2 0 2 4 W it h ( Com p r om ise Appl. No.0 1 of 2 0 2 4 ) W it h C5 2 8 No.9 9 5 of 2 0 2 4 W it h ( Com p r om ise Appl. No.0 1 of 2 0 2 4 ) Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J.

¶1Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel with Mr. Pratul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶2Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder and Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶3Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶4In both the applications, preferred under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 the applicants are challenging proceedings of Criminal Case No. 708 of 2022 State vs. Vivek as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No.1074 of 2014, State vs. Ramnik and others arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No.374 of 2013 wherein the applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 506 & 420 IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

¶5Both these C528 applications are supported with compounding applications, which are supported with the affidavits of applicants, complainant-Ram Chand Sharma and victim Monica Jangra-respondent nos.2 & 3 and all of

them are identified by their respective counsel through their Adhar Card. However, Mr. Vivek Sharma, who is applicant in C528 No.992 of 2024 join proceedings through V.C. from California.

¶6This Court interacted with all the parties including Mr. Vivek Sharma and all of them submit that this proceeding should be dropped since they have settled their disputes.

¶7It is also informed to this Court that trial of Vivek Sharma, applicant in C528 No.992 of 2024 was separated since he was in abroad and it was renumbered as Criminal Case No.708 of 2022 State vs. Vivek.

¶8The brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by respondent no.2 bearing Case Crime No.374 of 2013 at P.S. Rishikesh, District Haridwar with the allegations that family of both Ramnik Panchal and Monica Jangra agreed to marry respondent no.3 with Ramnik Panchal and there was a ring ceremony on 08.12.2013 however on that day all these applicants including Ramnik Panchal strictly refused to marry with respondent no.3 and asked for demand of Rs.10,00,000/ - and other articles.

¶9In this FIR after investigation, the charge sheet was filed and cognizance has been taken. Now the compounding application has been moved with this contention that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and their relations are very cordial and furthermore, the victim-respondent no.3 already married with

another person in the year 2017 and she is happily living her married life.

¶10Learned counsel for the parties submits that since the parties have settled their disputes, therefore, useful purpose would serve to continue this proceeding and it will be a futile exercise and furthermore it will affect the married life of respondent no.3.

¶11In C528 No.995 of 2024 parties have given a written compromise dated

02.08.2024 wherein it was agreed that complainant shall be paid an amount of Rs.10,50,000/ - out of which Rs.50,000/ - in cash was earlier paid and today in Court a draft of Rs.10,00,000/ - has been handed over to the complainant.

¶12On the other hand, learned State Counsel fairly submits that all offences are compoundable except the offence punishable under Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, since allegation appears to be personal in nature and the parties have settled their disputes, therefore, there is no useful purpose to continue this proceeding.

¶13After hearing the learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration that the allegation appears to be personal in nature and the parties have settled their dispute amicably and their relations are very cordial, this Court is of the view that the compounding application deserves to be allowed.

¶14Both the compounding applications are allowed. The entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.708 of 2022, State vs. Vivek as well as Criminal Case No.1074 of 2014, State vs. Ramnik and others arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No.374 of

2013 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.

¶15Accordingly, both C528 applications are disposed of finally.

( Rak esh Th apliyal, J.)

1 8 .1 2 .2 0 2 4 Arti