A dowry case, a Rs 24 lakh deal: What led court to set aside FIR against husband, family

Hearing the plea filed by the husband and his family seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) and all consequent proceedings based on the compromise, the court said the proceedings would be revived if the settlement fails.

Court notes wife’s presence

• The high court noted that the estranged couple had resolved to settle the dowry harassment dispute amicably between them, and the husband had agreed to pay Rs 24 lakh to his wife as permanent alimony.
• The estranged couple had agreed to jointly file an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (divorce by mutual consent) for the dissolution of their marriage in a court.
• The court took note of the wife’s presence in the courtroom, where she stated that all disputes between them had been resolved and that all cases instituted by her against the petitioners would be withdrawn upon receipt of the agreed permanent alimony amount.
• The wife also confirmed that she had voluntarily entered into the compromise and had no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

• The court noted that offences alleged to have been committed by the accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime; rather, they are petty offences.
• The high court found it appropriate to quash the dowry harassment FIR as well as consequential proceedings, considering the fact that the accused persons and the complainant have compromised the matter.
• It added that in this case, the possibility of conviction is remote, and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
• The court quashed the FIR and proceedings arising out of it, and acquitted all the accused of the charges.
• However, it clarified that if the settlement fails for any reason or the parties do not abide by its terms, the criminal proceedings would automatically be revived.

5 years of marriage and litigation

It was placed on record that the estranged couple got married in 2017 but started living separately in June 2022. Subsequently, in December 2023, the wife filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, cruelty at the hands of the husband, father-in-law and other family members.

Later, in 2024, the estranged husband, his father and another family member approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the FIR based on a settlement.

During the pendency of the petition, the estranged couple arrived at a comprehensive settlement where the husband agreed to pay Rs 24 lakh as permanent alimony to the woman, and the wife agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act

During the present courtroom proceeding, the father-in-law of the woman stated that he has authority and instructions to make a statement on behalf of his son and another family member named as an accused. The high court took his statement on record.

Arguments

Additional advocates general Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR is allowed to sustain, rather the pendency of the same may further widen the rift between the parties.

They further stated that otherwise, the chances of conviction of the accused persons are very remote and bleak on account of the statement made by the estranged wife.

Advocate Rajesh Kumar Parmar appeared for the husband and his family.