[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Aziz Ahmad And Ors vs The State Of Delhi And Another on 28 January, 2026
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28th January, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 287/2026, CRL.M.A. 2801/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2802/2026
AZIZ AHMAD AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Purushottam Kaushik, Advocate
with petitioner No.1 in person and
petitioner Nos.2 to 5 through V.C.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) for State with SI Deepak Kumar,
Ms. Chinki Guliya, Advocate for
respondent No.2 with respondent No.2
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 526/2020 dated
21.10.2020, registered at P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi, under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. The marriage between complainant (respondent No.2 herein) and
petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 01.02.2020 according to Muslim rites and
customs. They, however, started living separately within few months of their
marriage.
3. Fact, however, remains that on the basis of the complaint made by
respondent No.2, the abovesaid FIR was registered on 21.10.2020.
4. Charge-sheet has yet not been filed.
5. The parties have, however, with the intervention of their family
members and common friends have reached at an amicable settlement. Copy
of such Settlement Deed dated 13.10.2025 has also been placed on record and,
in terms of settlement, the parties approached Family Court and vide order
dated 14.11.2025, the marriage between them has been declared to be
dissolved by way of mutual consent/Mubarat. The parties have a daughter
from the abovesaid wedlock and as per settlement, the custody of the daughter
would remain with mother, with no visitation rights to petitioner No.1.
6. Petitioner No.1 is present whereas petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have appeared
through video-conferencing.
7. Respondent No.2 is present and is represented by her counsel.
8. When asked, respondent No.2 has reiterated the terms and conditions
of the settlement and submits that in view of the settlement, she is no longer
interested in pursuing with instant FIR and would have no objection if the FIR
in question is quashed.
9. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) is present and identifies her.
10. Respondent No.2 has also agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as
full and final settlement in lieu of alimony, istridhan, maintenance for self
(past, present and future). She has already received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- has been received by her today during
the course of proceedings, by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 629215 dated
08.12.2025 drawn on Canara Bank.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
13. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 526/2020 dated
21.10.2020, registered at P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
14. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 28, 2026
st/js
