Allowed

Zameer Ahmad & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./3176/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A/406/34/506 IPC was sought to be quashed on the basis of a written settlement after divorce. Respondent No. 2 confirmed voluntary receipt of settlement amounts; the State had no objection. The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 39/2023 dated 14.01.2023 registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34/506 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Zameer Ahmad & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~44

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of decision: 12.09.2025

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 3176/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13955/2025 EXEMPTION ZAMEER AHMAD & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Adv. (Appearance not given) Petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. … Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Nitin, PS-Jamia Nagar. Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

¶10

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶11

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 39/2023, dated 14.01.2023, registered at P.S Jamia Nagar, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34/506 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶12

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 14.12.2019 as per Muslim Rites and ceremonies at New Delhi. One child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are living separately since 04.03.2022.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 3176/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶14

As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioners. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 498A/406/34/506 IPC against the petitioners.

¶15

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the terms of the settlement were reduced into writing in the form of a Compromise Deed/ MOU dated 30.03.2024. In view of the aforesaid settlement, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have obtained divorce on 30.03.2024 . It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 has paid the entire settlement amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) to respondent no. 2 as per the schedule in the settlement along all utensils bought by respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the custody of the child will remain with respondent no. 2. Copy of the Compromise Deed/ MOU dated 30.03.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-3.

¶16

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Nitin, from PS Jamia Nagar.

¶17

Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she has received the entire settlement amount and has no objection if the FIR No. 39/2023 is quashed against the Petitioners.

¶18

CRL.M.C. 3176/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶19

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 39/2023 is quashed.

¶20

Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable settlement of disputes in Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of Karnataka And Another , Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74, Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 & in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶21

Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC .

¶22

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶23

CRL.M.C. 3176/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶24

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 39/2023, dated 14.01.2023, registered at P.S Jamia Nagar, Delhi under section 498A/406/34/506 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶25

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶26

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

¶27

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶28

September 12, 2025 SK

¶29

CRL.M.C. 3176/2025 Page 4 of 4

Zameer Ahmad & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zameer Ahmad & Ors. v. State 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

Xxxxx Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rahul Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Satish Mehta & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs the Stte of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pratap Singh Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)