Delhi High Court
Abhinav Batra And Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 28 August, 2025
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 28.08.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 6025/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25636/2025 EXEMPTION
ABHINAV BATRA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Vrinda Gupta, Ms. Akansha
Chaurasia, Mr. Shaswat
Sharma, with P-2, P-3 & P-4 in
person. P-1 through VC.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Kirandeep Kaur, PS K.M. Pur
& W/SI Yaonai Paohow.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Mr.
Shashank Sharma, Advs. for R-
2 with 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, seeking quashing of FIR No. 205/2017, dated
15.07.2017, registered at P.S K.M. Pur, 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 08.02.2012 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 12.01.2021.
3. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 alleged
that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment on account
of dowry demands by petitioners. Chargesheet has since been filed
under section 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.
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 Settlement Deed dated 27.03.2025. Pursuant
to the aforesaid settlement, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have
obtained divorce on 02.06.2025. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1
has paid the total settlement amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Twenty Lacs Only) as per the schedule in settlement. It is
further submitted that respondent no. 2 has removed her belongings
from the matrimonial home (C-35, 2nd Floor, South Extension Part-I)
as specified in the settlement and has handed over the keys of the
shared household. Copy of the Settlement Deed dated 27.03.2025 has
been annexed as Annexure A-2.
5. It is submitted that Petitioner no. 1 who is currently residing in
Dubai, UAE has authorized Petitioner no. 3 as his Special Power of
Attorney on his behalf, copy of the same has been annexed as
Annexure A-3.
6. Petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Respondent no. 2 are physically -
present before the Court while Petitioner no. 1 has entered their
appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective
counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Kirandeep Kaur
from PS K.M. Pur.
7. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably
settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she
has received the total settlement amount and has no objection if the
FIR No. 205/2017 is quashed against the Petitioners.
8. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR No. 205/2017 is quashed.
9. 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
10. 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 v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC.
11. In view of the above facts that 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.
12. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.
205/2017, dated 15.07.2017, registered at P.S K.M. Pur, Delhi under
section 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding
emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
13. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
August 28, 2025
SK
