[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Abhishek Kumar & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 12 January, 2026
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12th January, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 222/2026 & CRL.M.A. 838/2026 & CRL.M.A. 839/2026
ABHISHEK KUMAR & ORS.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Bhushan, Advocate through
V.C.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with SI Sachin Kumar.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Chawla, Advocate
for R-2 along 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. 1357/2015 dated
21.12.2020, registered at P.S. Amar Colony, under Section 406 IPC, along
with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, based on compromise
arrived at between the parties.
2. Respondent no.2 was married to petitioner no.1 on 28.06.2012 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies.
3. It is submitted that another FIR was also registered bearing No.
85/2014 at P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi, for commission of offence under
Section 498A IPC as well as under Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. Admittedly, the abovesaid case resulted in conviction, fact remains
that in view of the compromise, even the said proceedings stand quashed by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Revision No. 101/2021 vide
order dated 23.08.2022.
4. The parties have, even, obtained a decree of divorce vide judgment
dated 28.06.2021.
5. Parties are present through video-conferencing and the Court has
interacted with them.
6. Upon query to respondent No.2, she submits that she is a a practicing
Advocate and has entered into the settlement voluntarily, and without any
undue influence or coercion. She further states that she has also received the
entire settlement amount of Rs. 30 lacs in lieu of maintenance, istridhan,
alimony and therefore, would have no objection if the FIR in question is
quashed.
7. There is no off-spring from the wedlock in question.
8. The charge-sheet has reportedly been filed, however, charges have not
been ascertained yet.
9. Petitioner No.1-Mr. Abhishek Kumar is, reportedly, working in
Kolkata and has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing.
10. His mother (petitioner No.3) is stated to be unwell and, therefore, has
been taken to hospital and resultantly, his parents are unable to join the
proceedings.
11. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) is present and confirms the broad facts
and identifies the complainant.
12. 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 private in nature. In any case, even
the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.
13. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
14. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 1357/2015 dated
21.12.2020, registered at P.S. Amar Colony, under Section 406 IPC, along
with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2026/ss/sa
