Quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS against a 2012 dowry/cruelty FIR. Parties had settled by agreement dated 28.09.2024 with payment to the complainant, who recorded a statement supporting quashing; the State raised no objection. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and chargesheet.
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.
$~80
MR SANJEEV CHOPRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Malhotra & Mr. Angad Singh Khanna, Advs. with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State. SI Chandan, P.S. Paschim Vihar. Mr. Vivek Malhotra, Adv. for R-2. R-2 through VC.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
CRL.M.A. 10955/2025 (Exemption)
CRL.M.C. 2449/2025
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 01/07/2025 at 02:53:32
“Today, statement of Respondent no. 2 & petitioner have been recorded to ascertain the veracity and the genuineness of the parties entering into settlement.
Respondent no. 2 & petitioner have been identified by his counsel. Let the pre-verified statement along with this order be placed before the Hon'ble Court on 08"' May, 2025..”
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 01/07/2025 at 02:53:32
“I am the Respondent no. 2 in the present petition. At my instance, FIR No. 09/2012, Under Section 498-A/406/34 IPG, was registered at PS Paschim Vihar, East Delhi. The charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.
Now, I have voluntarily without any pressure or coercion from anyone and with the intervention of friends and family members and after obtaining due legal advice entered into MOU/settlement deed executed on 28.09.2024 and have settled all my issues, disputes and grievances with the petitioner. The MOU is on record as Annexure P-2 at page 42 bearing my signatures.
As per the settlement, I have already received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/as well as today 1 have received a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/bearing no. 762024, drawn on State Bank of India, dated 11.03.2025 today in the court. Subject to realization of the demand draft handed over today, 1 will receive the total settlement amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and subject to the honour of demand draft handed over today, I have no objections, if the FIR No. 096/2012, Under Section 498-A/406/34 IPG, registered at PS Paschim Vihar, East Delhi and all proceedings emanating there from are quashed against all the petitioner.
This settlement amount is towards my entire alimony and maintenance whatsoever for past, present and future, as well as towards all my articles and stridhan whatsoever. I shall not claim anything in this regards in future by way of any litigation. I shall abide by all the terms of the settlement and fully cooperate in quashing of the present FIR.
As per the terms of the settlement, I have already withdrawn all other cases instituted by me against the petitioner. I further undertake to withdraw any other ease, if any remaining.
As per settlement, the child namely Kushagra Chopra (Aged about 22 years) is major and has been residing with me.
I have already obtained divorce by mutual consent from petitioner no. 1 in HMA No. 660/2025 vide decree dated 25.03.2025 from the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The decree sheet is not on record.
Now, I have no objection whatsoever if the present FIR against the petitioners is quashed and I shall fully cooperate in quashing of the present HR and raise no claim in future through any civil or criminal litigation with « regards to the incident relating to the present FIR. I have also given my affidavit in support of the present petition which is at page no. 22 of the petition bearing my signatures.
This is my true statement being made voluntarily in the presence of my counsel. I fully understand the consequences of making this statement. This statement has been signed by me in the presence of my counsel after the
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 01/07/2025 at 02:53:32
same has been read over to me in Hindi.”
“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 proceeding.”
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 01/07/2025 at 02:53:32
quashed.
AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 08, 2025 / nk Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 01/07/2025 at 02:53:32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 9/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and consequential proceedings should be quashed in view of the parties' settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶11
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjeev Chopra
State of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Respondent No. 2
Amit Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
