The Allahabad High Court last week noted that the ‘compromise mentality’ between the contesting parties is now rampantly reigning for a few days, “The life of the departed isn’t quite so cheap, which could be negotiated between two individuals.”
Thus, at the hearing of an application filed by the petitioner requesting his bail, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi noted in a case recorded under u/s 498A, 304B, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Facts of the case:
The case involves a woman who lost her life at her husband’s residence within one and a half months of her marriage.
The FIR was registered against the husband (applicant before the Court) and his other family members on 18 July 2019 by the mother of the deceased woman in connection with this case. In the FIR, charges were levelled that they were demanding a car, a golden chain and Rs.1 lac as additional dowry, and on this score, the deceased was tortured and on 17 July 2019, they finally killed her while this claim remained unfulfilled.
The u/s 161 Cr.P.C. statements the mother (informant) and father of the deceased woman were recorded, clearly supporting the F.I.R. version.
Significantly, during the trial, on 17 July 2019, the lawyer for the Applicant/Husband/Accused drawn the attention of the Court to the suspected Panchnama and some photos alleging that the father of the deceased admitted Rs.2 lacs and found exonerated the accused persons from accusations that have been made against them.
“It’s nothing but because of agreement between the parties. The Law Courts cannot be made party to the said compromise. “In the interest of justice, it is recommended that an interrogation should take place into the crime committed and in relation to the prosecutions.
By providing false and deceptive evidence to this Court. The Court also ordered the issuance of a notice pursuant to Section 340 Cr.P.C. To Smt. Savita Devi the informant (mother of the deceased woman) must appear in person or through her solicitor to answer as to why the case should not be moved against her. Finally, the Court ruled that the informant’s reply should be obtained by the office by 20 February 2021 at the latest.
On 24 February 2021, the case was once again listed for further hearing & claims.
