Delhi High Court
Tushar Sharma & Anr vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 7 November, 2025
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07.11.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 7853/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32890/2025 EXEMPTION
TUSHAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.P. Srivastava, Advocate
with Petitioner No. 1 in person.
Petitioner No. 2 through VC.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP.
SI Rashmi, PS-Janakpuri.
Mr. Rohit Tyagi, Ms. Mahima
Tyagi, Mr. Sumit Kumar,
Advocates for R-2 with
Respondent No. 2 through VC.
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. 115/2024, dated
17.03.2024, registered at P.S Janakpuri, 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 09.12.2021 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at
Delhi. No Child was born out of the said wedlock. Due to
temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2 have
been living separately since 24.04.2022.
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. She further alleged that petitioner no. 1
coerced her into unnatural sex. Chargesheet has since been filed under
sections 498A/406/377/354/354A/34 IPC against the Petitioners.
4. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
their disputes before and the terms of settlement were written in the
form of a Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement
dated 19.04.2025. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent
No. 2 have obtained divorce by mutual consent on 02.08.2025. Copy
of the Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement dated
19.04.2025 has been annexed as Annexure P-2.
5. Petitioner No. 1 is physically present before the Court while
petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 have entered their appearance
through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as
well as by the Investigating Officer SI Rashmi, from PS Janakpuri.
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. 115/2024 is quashed against the
Petitioners.
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. 115/2024 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 v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC.
10. 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
abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
11. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.
115/2024 dated 17.03.2024, registered at P.S Janakpuri, Delhi under
section 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
November 07, 2025
SK
