Allowed

Anil Kumar & Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC14 May 2025CRL.M.C./2087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi petitioners to quash an FIR under Sections 328, 506, and 34 IPC following a settlement deed. Withdrawing charges were not framed, and the dispute was settled amicably without coercion. The petition was allowed, quashing the proceeding.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 370/2013 dated 05.09.2013 and all consequential proceedings were quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 20,000 with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days.

Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~93

¶2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 14.05.2025 + CRL.M.C. 2087/2025 & CRL M.A 9377/2025 EXEMPTION

¶3

ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Thakur, Adv. along with petitioners in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE & ANR. … Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Deepak Sahu, PS Punjabi Bagh.

¶6

Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Atul Singh Rawat & Mr. Sancheet Sharma, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

¶9

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶10

This petition under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 seeks quashing of FIR No. 370/2013 dated 05.09.2013 under Sections 328/506/34 IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom pursuant to a settlement between the parties.

¶11

Respondent no. 2 married the petitioner’s daughter after she converted to Islam. He alleged that on being invited to the petitioner’s

¶12

CRL.M.C. 2087/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 20:12:28

¶14

home on 24.10.2012, he was mentally harassed, which led to his hospitalization. He further claimed coercion and threats by the petitioner’s family, resulting in registration of FIR under Sections 328, 506, and 34 IPC.

¶15

During the proceedings, both parties entered into a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2024. The Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2024 is annexed as Annexure-E .

¶16

Petitioners & respondent no.2 are physically present before the Court with respective Counsels. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Deepak Sahu from PS Punjabi Bagh.

¶17

Respondent No. 2 submits that the matter has been amicably settled with the Petitioners without any force, fear, or coercion. He has no objection to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2024 and further submits that he has no objection if FIR No. 370/2013 dated 05.09.2013 under Sections 328/506/34 IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, along with all pending proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed against the Petitioners. He further states that FIR No. 144/2013 under Section 498A/34 IPC, PS Shakarpur registered against him at the instance of daughter of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 has since been quashed vide order dated 20.05.2015.

¶18

CRL.M.C. 2087/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 20:12:28

¶20

Ld. APP opposes the petition stating that offence alleged is of serious nature.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

FIR is of the year 2013, but till date charges have not been framed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 370/2013 dated 05.09.2013 under Sections 328/506/34 IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

¶24

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 370/2013 dated 05.09.2013 under Sections 328/506/34 IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, along with the all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed, subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 15 days.

¶25

CRL.M.C. 2087/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 20:12:28

¶27

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶28

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

¶29

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶30

MAY 14, 2025/na

¶31

CRL.M.C. 2087/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 20:12:28

Anil Kumar & Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar & Ors. v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and 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

Prabhat Kumar Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Shubham Kapoor and Others Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jaya Agarwal Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jagadish Das through Its Parokar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rajat Pillai & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajeev Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi through P.S. SHO Crime(Women) Cell Nanakpura, Delhi & Anr.