[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Prabhat Kumar Ors vs The State Govt Of N C T Of Delhi Throuth Is ... on 15 January, 2026
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th January, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 202/2026 & CRL.M.A. 769/2026
PRABHAT KUMAR ORS
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hrithik Manchanda and Pawan
Bhatia, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI THROUTH IS SHO PS
SUNLIGH COLONY & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with SI Vivek Tomar, P.S.
Sunlight Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No.294/2021 dated
06.06.2021, registered at Police Station Sunlight Colony, Delhi for
commission of offences under Sections 498A/406//34 IPC, along with all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
2. Petitioner No.1 got married to respondent No.2 on 08.11.2019, as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. No offspring is born from the said wedlock.
3. However, immediately after marriage, on account of certain
temperamental differences, the couple started residing separately.
4. On the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2, the abovesaid FIR
was registered.
5. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 herein had also sought divorce on ground
of cruelty, and since there was no participation from the side of his wife in
such proceedings, petitioner No.1 obtained ex-parte divorce on 28.08.2023.
6. However, thereafter the parties, in order to sort out their differences,
approached Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 12.08.2025, and
were able to dissolve all their disputes amicably.
7. Respondent No.2 has also relinquished and forgone all her
claims/rights towards maintenance (past, present and future), alimony and
istridhan, and has already withdrawn her one another complaint.
8. Respondent No.2 appears in person and is duly identified by her
counsel and I.O. She reiterates the terms of settlement and submits that she
would have no objection if the instant FIR is quashed. She, however, submits
that pursuant to such settlement, petitioner No.4 is also under obligation to
withdraw one suit against her, which seeks damages on account of
defamation.
9. Petitioner No.4 has appeared through video-conferencing, and
undertakes and assures that she would withdraw her such suit.
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.294/2021 dated
06.06.2021, registered at Police Station Sunlight Colony, Delhi for
commission of offences under Sections 498A/406//34 IPC, along with all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
13. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 15, 2026/ss/sa
