Delhi High Court
Sh Nitin Sharma & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 20 August, 2025
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 20.08.2025
+ W.P. (CRL) 2599/2025 & CRL. M.A. 24513/2025
NECESSARY ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS, CRL.M.A.
24514/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPIES ETC.
SH. NITIN SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Bakul
Jain, Mr. Shivam Bansal, Advs.
with P-1, 3, 5 in person. P-4
through VC.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Priyam
Aggarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar
Arya, Mr. Aryan Sachdeva,
Advs. with SI Kishan Chand,
PS Dwarka South.
Mr. Ranbir Singh, Adv. for R-2
along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
seeking quashing of FIR No. 131/2025, dated 12.03.2025, registered at
P.S Dwarka, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all
proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between
the parties.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the
marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant
was solemnized on 16.02.2022 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at
Delhi. No child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on
account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent
No. 2 are living separately since 14.12.2022.
3. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was
subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry
demands by the petitioners. FIR No. 131/2025 was lodged at instance
of Respondent No. 2 at P.S Dwarka, Delhi under sections 498A/
406/34 IPC against the petitioners. It is submitted that since after
recording of statement of Respondent no. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C,
Section 377 IPC has also been invoked.
4. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
their disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into
writing in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding dated
26.07.2025. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the 1st motion for
divorce between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has been
granted on 06.08.2025. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 has paid
Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) out of the total settlement
amount of Rs. 58,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight lacs only) as per the
schedule in settlement. Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding
dated 26.07.2025 has been annexed as Annexure-B.
5. Petitioner no. 1, 3, 5 and Respondent no. 2 are physically -
present before the Court while Petitioner no. 4 has entered her
appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective
counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Kishan Chand from
PS Dwarka South.
6. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably
settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she
has no objection if the FIR No. 131/2025 is quashed against the
Petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 undertakes to pay balance amount of Rs.
8,00,000/- on or before the 2nd motion.
7. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR No. 131/2025 is quashed.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable
settlement of disputes in Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of
Karnataka And Another, Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
74, Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.,
(2013) 4 SCC 58 & in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
9. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482
of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court
can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of
the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned
parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the
cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus
if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be
placed upon: B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675.
10. In view of the above facts, the parties have amicably resolved
their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion.
Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the above
mentioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
11. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.
131/2025, dated 12.03.2025, registered at P.S Dwarka, Delhi under
sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding
emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
12. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
August 20, 2025
SK
