Case Summary: Appellant v. Respondent – Quashing of Charge Sheet and Criminal Proceedings under Dowry Prohibition Act

In the legal case between the Appellant and Respondent, the High Court recently made a decision regarding the quashing of the charge sheet and criminal proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case involves allegations under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Stay updated on the latest development in this case.


  • The First Information Report was lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the appellants under Section 493 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  • Appellant No. 2’s marriage was settled with another girl for a handsome amount of dowry, leading to the lodging of the First Information Report.
  • Subsequently, appellants started demanding a dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs after the FIR was lodged.
  • A dispute between the parties was reportedly compromised at the Mahila Thana after the Inspector Incharge summoned both parties.
  • The appellants alleged a change in behavior from the complainant’s family after the wedding expenses were to be shared equally as settled.
  • A complaint was made against the appellants with a demand of Rs. 10 lakhs, accompanied by a threat to implicate them in a false case.
  • Appellant No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC against the complainant and family members.
  • Thereafter, Appellant No. 2 started frequenting the complainant’s house and misled his daughter, Jyoti, about the finalized marriage.
  • Allegations in the FIR suggest that Respondent No. 2 proposed the marriage of his daughter, Jyoti, to Appellant No. 1.
  • A charge sheet was filed against the appellants after investigation by the concerned Police Station, which was challenged in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
  • A compromise led to the appellants not pursuing the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
  • A complaint was made at the Mahila Thana, but no action was taken, before the FIR was filed about 10 months post-compromise.
  • The marriage proposal was finalized after appellants visited Respondent No. 2’s house on June 30, 2013.
  • Appellant No. 2 allegedly established a physical relationship with Jyoti on August 16, 2013, after inducing her to his room.
  • A ring ceremony was conducted on July 21, 2013, setting the marriage date for November 19, 2013.
  • The High Court found no justification for quashing the charge sheet.
  • As a result, the petition was dismissed.
  • This decision reaffirms the validity of the charge sheet.

Also Read: Challenges to Eyewitness Testimony


  • The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court failed to acknowledge that a fresh criminal action cannot be initiated for the same cause of action settled by compromise 10 months earlier.
  • The compromise was acted upon by both parties, indicating resolution and finality to the matter.
  • The appellant vehemently emphasized that this crucial aspect was overlooked by the High Court in its decision.
  • Highlighting the importance of the settled compromise, the appellant’s counsel aimed to demonstrate that initiating a new criminal action on the same grounds was legally untenable.
  • The argument stresses the binding nature of the previously settled matter and the need to respect the agreement reached by both parties.
  • Respondent’s counsel argues that the First Information Report was filed under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  • Both offenses mentioned are non-compoundable in nature and cannot be compromised.
  • Respondent’s counsel refutes the appellant’s claim that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offense.
  • The High Court’s dismissal of the 482 petition is defended by the respondent as not overlooking the legal nature of the offenses mentioned in the FIR.

Also Read: Interpretation of ‘Agreement to Lease’ in Land Tenancy Dispute


  • The offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code requires the man to deceitfully cause a woman to believe she is lawfully married to him, leading to cohabitation.
  • The allegations in the FIR do not establish the essential elements of deception and inducement required under Section 493 IPC.
  • On the other hand, the charges under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are specific and do not qualify for quashing due to the gravity of the offence.
  • The power of compounding of offences under Section 320 is distinct from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court using inherent jurisdiction.
  • Non-compoundable offences like those under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act may not be quashed based on settlements between parties.
  • The accusations of demanding dowry of Rs.5 Lakhs against the appellants constitute an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  • The differentiation between compounding and quashing is crucial in understanding the High Court’s authority in criminal cases.
  • Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
  • High Court may use its powers under Section 482 to quash proceedings if a settlement between parties would lead to better relations and resolution of a private dispute.
  • Offences for which the appellants have been charged are offences against society and not private in nature.
  • Continuance of trial for serious offences is founded on the overriding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such offences.
  • Section 493 of the IPC deals with the offence of deceitfully inducing a woman to believe she is lawfully married to a man, leading to cohabitation.
  • To establish the offence under Section 493, it must be proven that the accused deceitfully induced the woman to believe she was lawfully married to him.
  • The core elements of the offence under Section 493 include deceit causing a false belief of a lawful marriage and subsequent cohabitation.
  • The High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 even if the offence is non-compoundable, depending on the facts of each case.
  • While considering whether to quash a proceeding based on settlement between the victim and offender, the nature and gravity of the offence must be taken into account.
  • Serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity should not be quashed even if the parties have settled, as these offences have a significant impact on society.
  • Deceit in Section 493 is defined as a false statement of fact made intentionally to be acted upon by another, causing harm when believed and acted upon.
  • The High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 must be used to secure justice or prevent the abuse of court processes.
  • Charge sheet under Section 493 IPC quashed due to lack of evidence of the offence
  • Criminal proceedings under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to continue as FIR discloses cognizable offence
  • High Court’s order regarding Section 493 IPC set aside as it would be an abuse of process to continue prosecution without evidence of the offence

Also Read: Employer’s Duty in Ensuring Driver Competence: Legal Analysis


  • Appeal dismissed in relation to the charge sheet under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Case Title: ARUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. (2020 INSC 163)

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000250-000250 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *