[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sh. Pardeep Singh Rathee & Anr vs The State N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr on 2 February, 2026
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02nd February, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 602/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2379/2026
SH. PARDEEP SINGH RATHEE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuj Kumar with Mr. Ashish
Mishra, Advocate with petitioners in
person.
versus
THE STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with W/ASI Pushpa Rani with SI
Balshwar, PS Najafgarh.
Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate with
respondent No.2 with respondent No.2
(through V.C.)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners herein seeks quashing of FIR No. 95/2024 dated
15.04.2024, registered at P.S. Najaf Garh, for commission of offences under
Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Petitioner No.1 got married to respondent No.2 on 25.06.2009 as per
Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a baby girl from the
abovesaid wedlock on 14.07.2012.
3. However, on account of some matrimonial dispute and temperamental
differences, parties could not live together and, initially, respondent No.2 had
lodged a complaint with the police, which resulted in registration of
abovesaid FIR.
4. Fact, however, remains that both the parties have now settled their
matrimonial disputes and have agreed to part ways in a graceful manner.
5. Broad terms of settlement are contained in Memorandum of
Understanding dated 23.09.2025 and in terms thereof, parties have already
obtained divorce by way of mutual consent on 18.12.2025 and have also
settled their other connected matters.
6. Respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.40 lacs as full and final
settlement in lieu of istridhan, alimony, maintenance for self (past, present
and future) and as per settlement, the custody of daughter shall remain with
respondent No.2, with no visitation right to the other side.
7. Respondent No.2 has joined the proceedings through
video-conferencing from the chamber of her advocate and she has been duly
identified by her counsel as well as the Investigating Officer, who is present in
Court.
8. Upon query, respondent No.2 has reiterated the terms and conditions of
the settlement and submits that in view of such settlement, she is no longer
interested in pursuing with instant FIR.
9. Petitioner No.1 and his mother are present in person and they also
assure that they would abide by the terms of Memorandum of Understanding
dated 23.09.2025.
10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with
criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when dispute
does not involve any public interest and is, primarily, private in nature. In any
case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the
petitioners.
11. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
12. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 95/2024 dated
15.04.2024, registered at P.S. Najaf Garh, for commission of offences under
Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
13. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
14. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2026/st/js
