Delhi High Court
Karan Khanna And Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr,. on 8 April, 2025
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08.04.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 9707/2024
KARAN KHANNA AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate
Petitioner no. 1 in person
Petitioner no. 2 & 3 through VC
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State
with SI Chitra, P.S.South Rohini
Mr.Kawalpreet Singh , Adv. for R-2
R-2 in person.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of the petitioner, seeking quashing
of FIR No. 228/2024, dated 02.07.2024, P.S South Rohini under
sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom
on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. The marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2
was solemnized on 05.05.2019 in Delhi according to Sikh rites and
ceremonies. From this wedlock, a male child named Yodhansh
Khanna was born on 13.04.2020. Due to temperamental differences,
the couple started living separately from 23.12.2023. Thereafter, on a
complaint made by respondent No.2 the aforesaid FIR was registered.
3. It is submitted that with the intervention of relatives from both
sides, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 mutually resolved their
differences. They started residing together again as husband and wife
at a rented accommodation at F-29, Ground Floor, Malka Ganj, Delhi-
110007 from 21.10.2024, independent of their respective families. It is
further submitted that the parties have duly reduced their settlement
conditions into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated
26.11.2024 which has been placed on record as Annexure P4.
4. Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 are physically present
before the Court whereas Petitioner no. 2 & 3 have entered their
appearances through VC. They have been identified by their
respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer, SI Chitra
from PS South Rohini.
5. Respondent no. 2 submits that the matter has been settled with
the petitioners. She further submits that she and Petitioner no. 1 are
living together peacefully and she has no objection if the FIR is
quashed against the petitioners.
6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR is quashed.
7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of
disputes by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would
be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings
would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put
to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceedings."
8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties
have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with the present FIR No. 228/2024, dated 02.07.2024, P.S
South Rohini under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other
consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.
9. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.
228/2024, dated 02.07.2024, P.S South Rohini under sections
498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
APRIL 8, 2025/ib/r
