Wife's complaint FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC quashed after parties amicably settled disputes, marriage dissolved by mutual consent divorce decree, respondent wife and State raised no objection to quashing.
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.
$~53
MANJEET SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Banish Bhardwaj, Advocate with Petitioners-in-person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC with W/SI Sumita Sehrawat, PS: Patel Nagar. Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Mr. Sanjeev Yadav and Mr. Sandeep Rathi Adv for R-2 with Respondent No. 2 through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 17577/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 1812/2024
1. 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 petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0532/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at PS: Patel Nagar and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for the State and learned counsel for
Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL)1812/2024
Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.08.2024 14:55:35
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 No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Sikh rites and ceremonies on 01.02.2017. A female child was born out of the wedlock, who is presently in custody of respondent No. 2. Due to matrimonial differences, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living separately. On complaint of respondent No. 2, present FIR was registered on 10.08.2022.
4. The disputes have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of Settlement dated 22.03.2024. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide judgment dated 14.05.2024.
5. Learned ASC for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
6. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are present and have been identified by W/SI Sumita Sehrawat, PS: Patel Nagar. 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
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.08.2024 14:55:35
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(CRL)1812/2024
between the parties. Consequently, FIR No. 0532/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at PS: Patel Nagar 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 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL)1812/2024
Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.08.2024 14:55:35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC should be quashed in view of amicable settlement and divorce by mutual consent between the parties?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Manjeet Singh & Ors.
State 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
