Matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC quashed after spouses settled their disputes by agreement dated 20.06.2022, with the complainant confirming voluntary settlement before the court.
FIR No. 78/2021 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Gokal Puri and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
Through: Mr. Vinod Pal, Adv. with petitioners.(VC)
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for State with ASI Sita Ram, PS Gokal Puri R-2 through VC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:36:43
proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and in furtherance thereof they have entered into a settlement agreement dated 20.06.2022 on the following terms and conditions:
1. That it has been agreed by and between the parties that in future both the parties will not quarrel or abuse to each other and they both will reside peacefully in the house of the second party i.e. the matrimonial home of the first party.
2.That it has been agreed between the parties that both the parties will withdraw their above mentioned respective cases/withdraw before filing of the quashing petition.
3. That it has been agreed between the parties that the second party shall file the quashing petition for quashing of the above mentioned FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the first party will co-operate in getting the said FIR quashed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
4. That it has been agreed by and between the parties that after the execution of the present MOU ie. after signing of both the parties on the present MOU, if any complaint found pending against any of the party and if any party make any complaint against other party then the same shall be treated as null and void as well as withdrawn and they both will not prosecute in future also.
5. That all the contents of this agreement/settlement have been read over and understood by the parties in their vernacular language to their full satisfaction including consent of parents of first party.
6. That the above terms and conditions have been arrived at between the parties on their own free will without any coercion or pressure from any side.
And whereas the settlement is arrived at between the parties voluntarily, without there being any pressure, coercion or threat or undue influence of any kind and contents of the petition have
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:36:43
been read over to the parties in their vernacular and both the parties put their signatures from their free will, choice and consent without any pressure.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:36:43
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 Pallavi /KR
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:36:43
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 78/2021 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the spouses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶6
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. DeepaRelied on¶6
(2013) 5 SCC 226 · Who else cites this
Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and AnotherRelied on¶6
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179 · Who else cites this
Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶7
2022 SCC Online SC 1030 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PREM CHAND & ORS.
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Respondent No. 2 (complainant)
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
