This judgment quashed FIR No. 0291/2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement reached between petitioner and respondent No. 2 after marital discord, deeming continued proceedings as an abuse of court process.
FIR No. 0291/2022 registered at PS: Neb Sarai and all proceedings emanating therefrom stand 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.
$~52
THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with SI Vivek Kumar, PS: Neb Sarai. Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Adv. for R-2 with R-2-in-person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA % J U D G M E N T ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0291/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at PS: Neb Sarai and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2 in person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 30.05.2014. Due to matrimonial differences, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living separately. On complaint of respondent
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 2
W.P.(CRL) 1749/2024
Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.08.2024 14:55:35
No. 2, present FIR was registered on 22.04.2022.
4. The disputes are stated to have been mutually resolved between the parties vide MoU dated 24.05.2024 and petitioner and respondent No. 2 are happily residing together since then. 5. Learned ASC for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. 6. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by SI Vivek Kumar, PS: Neb Sarai. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. The chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Consequently, FIR No. 0291/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at PS: Neb Sarai and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
AUGUST 13, 2024/ R
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 2
W.P.(CRL) 1749/2024
Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.08.2024 14:55:35
3 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 0291/2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC should be quashed in light of amicable settlement between parties.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings after settlement serves any useful purpose or amount to abuse of process.
Whether chances of conviction are bleak considering the amicable settlement between the parties.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sh. Balbir
The State Government of NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
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
