Allowed

Rohit Mehra & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC22 May 2025CRL.M.C./1261/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an FIR registered under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. The marriage had been dissolved by consent divorce. A mutual settlement was reached where the husband agreed to pay maintenance and restore articles. The complainant agreed to the quashing upon confirmation that settlement terms were complied with. The State had no objection.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 158/2023 under Sections 498A/34 IPC registered at P.S. Chhawala, Delhi is quashed.

Rohit Mehra & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1261/2025

¶4

ROHIT MEHRA & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Shashi Shokeen Hooda, Mr. Harsh Kumar Bhaskar and Mr. Udham Singh, Advocates along with petitioner no. 1 in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with SI Dharmveer, P.S. Chhawala. R-2 in person through VC.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 22.05.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeks quashing of FIR No. 158/2023, under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Chhawala, Delhi.

¶12

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 05.02.2022 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶13

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

¶14

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 13.02.2022. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioners.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 26/05/2025 at 11:46:12

¶17

On 15.04.2024, parties arrived at a settlement before Counselling Cell, Family Courts, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including istridhan , permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future.

¶18

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 24.09.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi.

¶19

Petitioner no. 1 is present in Court and complainant/respondent no. 2 appears through video conferencing and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, SI Dharmveer, P.S. Chhawala.

¶20

On an oral request, personal appearance of petitioner nos. 2 to 6 is exempted.

¶21

The matter was also placed before the learned Joint Registrar who has recorded the statements of both the parties and passed the following order on 03.04.2025: -

¶22

“Mr. Neeraj Saini, Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 2 (Through VC) & Respondent no. 2 appeared in person and submits that the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- bearing no. 163212 drawn on Bank of Baroda, dated 13.01.2025 handed over to Respondent no. 2 on the last date of hearing stands duly honoured and nothing else remains due in this case and Respondent no. 2 has no objection if FIR No. 0158/2023, Under Section 498-A/34 IPC, registered at PS Chhawla, Delhi and all proceeding emanating there from is quashed qua the petitioners.

¶23

The statement of Respondent no. 2 to ascertain the veracity and the genuineness of the parties entering into settlement was recorded on 26.03.2025.

¶24

The Settlement deed entered into between the parties is on record as Annexure B commencing from page 37.

¶25

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 26/05/2025 at 11:46:12

¶26

As per the settlement, the respondent no. 2 has now received the total settlement amount towards her article, stridhan as well as towards alimony and maintenance past, present and future whatsoever and Respondent no. 2 shall not claim anything in this regards in future by way of any litigation. As per the settlement, Respondent no. 2 has received the articles as settled including two Gold Rings.

¶27

Respondent no. 2 states that she has no objection whatsoever if FIR no. 0158/2023, Under Section 498-A/34 IPC, was registered at PS Chhawla, Delhi against the petitioners is quashed.

¶28

Respondent no. 2 has also been granted divorce by Mutual consent in HMA No. 2688/2024 vide decree dated 24.09.2024 which is on record as Annexure C at page 40.

¶29

There is no child born out the wedlock.

¶30

Respondent no. 2 shall abide by all the terms of the settlement and fully cooperate in quashing of the present FIR and withdrawal of any other case, if any as per the settlement. Respondent no. 2 undertakes to fully cooperate in quashing of the present FIR and withdrawal of all/any other connected case, if any. Respondent no. 2 has also given her affidavit in support of the present petition which is at page no. 24-25 of the petition bearing her signatures. This pre verified report along with the petition may be placed before the Hon’ble Court on 30^th April, 2025 .”

¶31

The complainant/respondent No.2 states that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She further states that all the terms of the agreement have been complied with.

¶32

Learned APP for the State submits that investigation in the present case is pending and chargesheet is yet to be filed, however, in view of the settlement between the parties, he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶33

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

¶34

“61. ... In other words, the High Court must consider whether it

¶35

¶36

would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶37

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 158/2023, under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Chhawala, Delhi.

¶38

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 158/2023, under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Chhawala, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

¶39

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶42

MAY 22, 2025/bsr

¶43

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶44

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 26/05/2025 at 11:46:12

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

Rohit Mehra & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Mehra & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Birpal Singh @ Veerpal and Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Hitender Uppal & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dalchand Mahrauliya Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Shrey Malhotra & Anr. Vs State of Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Arman Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Vineet Singh & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.