Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. In both these petitions, the challenge is made to the charge-sheet dated 18.01.2017 as well as summoning order dated 16.06.2017, passed in
Criminal Case No.2963 of 2017, State vs. Amit Dimari and others, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, by the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun (“the caseâ€) on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. A joint
compounding application has also been filed supported by the affidavits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The petitioner Amit Dimari is the husband of the respondent no.2, Nidhi Dimari; and petitioners Shashi Bhushan Dimri and Smt. Deepa Dimri are
parents of the petitioner Amit Dimari.
5. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that it is a dispute arising out of matrimonial discord; the petitioner Amit Dimari and the respondent
no.2, Nidhi Dimari, both have settled the matter amicably and they have decided to stay separate.
6. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by the respondent no.2, Nidhi Dimari (“the informantâ€). According to her, she and the petitioner Amit
Dimari were married on 21.11.2011, But, after marriage the petitioners Shashi Bhushan Dimri and Smt. Deepa Dimri harassed and tortured the
informant in connection with additional demand of dowry and they also pressurized the petitioner Amit Dimari, so that he could further pressurized the
informant for dowry. The FIR is quite in detail. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, in which, on 16.06.2017,
summoning order has been passed.
7. At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the date of summoning order has been wrongly mentioned as
07.10.2017, in the memo of petition. In fact, summoning was done on 16.06.2017 in the case, by which, the petitioners have been summoned to answer
the accusation under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
8. The petitioners Amit Dimari, Shashi Bhushan Dimri and Smt. Deepa Dimri are before the Court and the respondent no.2 Nidhi Dimari joined the
proceedings through video conferencing, as identified by their respective counsel. They have verified the compromise. The petitioner Amit Dimari and
the respondent no.2 Nidhi Dimari have stated that they have settled the dispute amicably; they have decided to stay separate.
9. The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2, the informant, she would submit they have settled the dispute amicably; now, they have also
obtained divorce and she does not want to proceed with the case.
10. Having considered the nature of the offence and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the petition may be decided on the basis of
compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be allowed.
11. The petitions are allowed. The charge-sheet dated 18.01.2017 as well as summoning order dated 16.06.2017, is hereby quashed.
12. Compounding Application (IA) No.11482 of 2024, stands disposed of accordingly.
