Quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC for FIR under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC after parties settled disputes via MoU and obtained divorce by mutual consent. State raised no objection; parties confirmed settlement without coercion. Court held continuation would be abuse of process and quashed the FIR.
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.
$~69
SOURABH SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Sarthak Gupta, Mr.Prashant Sharma, Ms.Atti Tyagi and Mr.Dayanand Sharma, Advocates with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Anil Kumar and WSI Preti Saini, P.S. Kanjhawla. Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 28866/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 7563/2024
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of petitioners for quashing of FIR No.238/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Kanjhawala and proceedings emanating therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed under Sections 498A/406/34/506 IPC.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:3 0.09.2024 17:05:19
CRL.M.C. 7563/2024
Page 1 of 3
2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for the State and 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 Hindu Rites and ceremonies on 04.06.2017. No child was born out of the wedlock. 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 09.03.2022.
4. The disputes are stated to have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of MoU dated 09.03.2023. 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 04.10.2023.
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. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by SI Anil Kumar, PS: Kanjhawla. 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
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:3 0.09.2024 17:05:19
CRL.M.C. 7563/2024
Page 2 of 3
Court. The chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Consequently, FIR No.238/2022, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Kanjhawala 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
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024/v
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7563/2024
Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:3 0.09.2024 17:05:19
1 issue framed by the court
Should FIR No.238/2022 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC be quashed given amicable settlement and divorce by mutual consent between the parties?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sourabh Sharma & Ors
State NCT of Delhi
Respondent No.2
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
