[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Amandeep Singh Bajaj & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 19 February, 2026
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19th February, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1411/2026
AMANDEEP SINGH BAJAJ & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal, Advocate
along with petitioners on person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP with SI Ashish
Yadav.
Mr. Divyansh Verma, Advocates
along with respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 166/2017 dated
24.12.2017, registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh, 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. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was
solemnized on 25.11.2012, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. They were
blessed with a baby girl from the abovesaid wedlock on 28.09.2015.
3. However, on account of some matrimonial dispute, respondent No.2
reported the matter to police which resulted in registration of abovesaid FIR.
4. Both the sides have entered into settlement and have started living
together in complete harmony and, therefore, the present petition has been
filed seeking quashing of FIR.
5. Copy of the charge-sheet has been filed in which three persons i.e.
Amandeep Singh Bajaj (husband), Ms. Vijaya Bajaj (mother-in-law), Mr.
Gurubachan Singh(father-in-law, since deceased) have been shown in column
No.11. Two accused i.e. Reena Bhardwaj and Dimpy Makkar have been
shown in column No. 12, and as per the charge-sheet, there is no sufficient
evidence against them.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 submits that the Court has not even taken cognizance against
said two persons, whose names appear in column No. 12.
7. Charges have yet not been ascertained.
8. It is also apprised that Father-in-law of respondent No.2 had expired
during the pendency of the proceedings and such fact has also been duly
verified by the IO. The proceedings qua him have already been ordered to be
abated by the learned Trial Court.
9. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, submits that she has entered
into settlement voluntarily and without any force and coercion and is residing
happily with husband.
10. She reiterates the terms of settlement and submits that she does not
want any further action and would have no objection if the FIR in question is
quashed.
11. Her affidavit, to said effect, is also on record.
12. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) is present and duly identifies her.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
15. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 166/2017 dated
24.12.2017, registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh, for commission of
offences under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, along with all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
16. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2026/sw/pb
