#Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand HC ruled that dowry related cruelty or harassment must be shown to have occurred soon before the victim’s death to sustain a Section 304B conviction, rejecting any presumption from death within seven years of marriage alone. The decision clarifies the evidentiary burden in dowry death cases and affects both prosecution strategy and defence rights.

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside two temporary acquisition orders of a helipad, ruling that the State must serve notice under Section 81(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act and that even an unregistered leaseholder qualifies as a ‘person interested’. The decision safeguards leaseholders from unlawful temporary acquisition.

The Uttarakhand High Court held that a husband who voluntarily assumed family responsibility must pay maintenance to a step-son, even without a biological relationship. It also increased monthly maintenance to ₹8,000 for the wife and ₹6,000 for the minor daughter. The ruling extends Section 125 CrPC protection to non-biological dependents.

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the charge-sheet and all criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita because the parties reached a voluntary settlement, even though the offence under Section 109 is non-compoundable. This establishes that a genuine settlement can override non-compoundability, guiding future compounding applications.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that suspending a government servant indefinitely without concluding disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The court quashed a five-year-old suspension order, directed fresh posting, and mandated expeditious completion of the enquiry, reinforcing procedural fairness in service law.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that a vehicle seized in a narcotic case must be released if no prima facie evidence links it to the offence. The court mandated release on a ₹50,000 bond, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene or registration in another jurisdiction does not justify prolonged detention, reinforcing proportionality in property seizures under criminal law.

Uttarakhand High Court holds that once parties settle a criminal case under Section 320 CrPC, the complainant cannot later claim interest or additional amounts beyond the agreed settlement terms. The ruling reinforces that compounding of offences under criminal law is final and binding, barring subsequent financial demands absent explicit agreement.

Uttarakhand High Court reinforces that criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if parties compromise, even when the State opposes it. The ruling emphasizes that continuation of proceedings would cause injustice, prioritizing reconciliation over retributive justice for compoundable offences.