Allowed¶25

Mohd Akbar & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC23 May 2025CRL.M.C./3445/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement; CRL.M.C. 3445/2025; Section 528 BNSS 2023; FIR No. 0281/2020 P.S. Narela; Sections 498A/406 IPC; matrimonial dispute; Compromise Deed dated 24.08.2020; mutual divorce/talaq 19.04.2025; Rs. 3,00,000/- full and final settlement; Section 12 DV Act petition; Section 156(3)/200 Cr.P.C. complaint; Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; quietus to dispute; ends of justice; Delhi High Court; Ravinder Dudeja, J.; decision dated 23.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and disposed of; FIR No. 0281/2020 dated 25.07.2020 registered at P.S Narela under sections 498A/406 IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; pending application(s) disposed of. ¶25

Mohd Akbar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 0281/2020 dated 25.07.2020, registered at P.S Narela under sections 498A/406 IPC, and all proceedings/consequential proceedings emanating therefrom ought to be quashed on the basis of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties, whereby they have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with FIR No. 0281/2020 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the petition under Section 528 BNSS is allowed and FIR No. 0281/2020 dated 25.07.2020 registered at P.S Narela under sections 498A/406 IPC, along with all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Ravinder Dudeja, J.) in CRL.M.C. 3445/2025 allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and quashed FIR No. 0281/2020 dated 25.07.2020, P.S. Narela, under Sections 498A/406 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of settlement between the parties. The marriage (solemnised 17.09.2017) had broken down; Respondent No.2 had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 12 DV Act, a Section 156(3)/200 Cr.P.C. complaint and the FIR. The parties executed a Compromise Deed dated 24.08.2020, dissolved the marriage by mutual divorce/talaq on 19.04.2025, and Petitioner No.1 paid Rs. 3,00,000/- as full and final settlement, which Respondent No.2 confirmed as voluntary and without coercion. Relying on Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that the parties having put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~61

¶2

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

¶3

% Date of decision: 23.05.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 3445/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15192/2025 MOHD AKBAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Aviram, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. … Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State Mr. M.I. Khan, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person. ASI Deshpal Singh, PS Narela

¶7

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶10

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0281/2020, dated 25.07.2020, registered at P.S Narela under sections 498A/406 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶11

The marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 17.09.2017 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies at Uttar Pradesh. No child was born out of the said wedlock. It is submitted that due to temperamental differences, the couple has been residing separately since March 2019. Thereafter, the Respondent

¶12

CRL.M.C. 3445/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 4.05.2025 13:12:26

¶14

No.2 filed a petition under section 12 of the DV Act, a complaint to the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. read with section 200 Cr.P.C. and also lodged the aforesaid FIR against the Petitioner No. 1 and his family members.

¶15

During the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes with the intervention of their families and well-wishers and have executed a Compromise deed dated 24.08.2020. In pursuance of the Settlement, it is submitted that the parties have dissolved their marriage by mutual divorce/talaq on 19.04.2025 and the Petitioner No.1 has paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Respondent No.2 as full as final settlement of all her dues in terms of Compromise Deed. It is submitted that all the previous complaints and litigations initiated by the parties have been withdrawn and all conditions of the Settlement have been fulfilled. The copy of Compromise deed dated 24.08.2020 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶16

Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and R-2 are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer ASI Deshpal Singh, from PS Narela.

¶17

Respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been settled with the Petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she has received the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Petitioner No.1 as per the the Compromise Deed. She further submits that she has no objection if the FIR No. 0281/2020 is quashed against the petitioners.

¶18

CRL.M.C. 3445/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 4.05.2025 13:12:26

¶20

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 0281/2020 is quashed.

¶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

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. 0281/2020, dated 25.07.2020, registered at P.S Narela under sections 498A/406 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

¶24

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 0281/2020, dated 25.07.2020, registered at P.S Narela under sections 498A/406 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶25