"Compromise Culture Rampantly Prevailing, Life Of Deceased Not Cheap Which Could Be Negotiated Between 2 Individuals": Allahabad High Court

"The life of the deceased is not so cheap, which could be negotiated between two individuals."

The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi noted thus while hearing an application filed by the applicant who was seeking his bail in a case registered u/s 498A, 304B, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The matter in brief

The matter relates to a woman, who lost her life within one and half month of her marriage at the residence of the applicant-husband.

The FIR in connection with this matter was registered on 18^th July 2019 by the mother of the deceased-woman against the husband (applicant before the Court) and his other family members.

Allegations were levelled in the FIR that they were demanding a motorcycle, a golden chain and Rs.1 lac as additional dowry and on this score, the deceased was tortured and when this demand remained unfulfilled, they eventually killed her on 17^th July 2019.

The statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of mother (informant) and father of the deceased-woman were recorded which clearly supported the version of F.I.R.

Significantly, during the Course of the hearing, the counsel for the Applicant/Husband/Accused drew Court's attention to the alleged Panchnama, dated 17^th July 2019 and some photographs, indicating that the father of the deceased has accepted Rs.2 lacs and has exonerated the accused persons from all the allegations made against them.

To this, the Court expressed its displeasure and said,

"This is nothing but as a result of compromise between the parties. The Law Courts cannot be made party to the said compromise."

Under the circumstances, the Court opined,

"It is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offence which has been committed and in relation to the proceeding of this Court by giving false and evidence."

Further, the Court directed that notice be issued under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to the informant Smt. Savita Devi (mother of the Deceased-woman) to appear in person or through her counsel giving reply as to why the proceeding should not be initiated against her.

Lastly, the Court directed that the reply of the informant must be received by the office latest by 20^th February 2021.

The matter has been listed for further hearing & arguments once again on 24^th February 2021.

Case title - Ritesh Chauhan v. State of U.P. [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 32538 of 2020]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order