Allowed¶24

Sarfaraz Mansoori and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Matrimonial dispute – quashing of FIR

Delhi HC9 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./3624/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise/settlement; matrimonial dispute; Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC; FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023, PS Shahdara; Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2024, Delhi Mediation Centre Karkardooma; resumption of cohabitation; inherent powers; Section 528 BNSS; abuse of process; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Delhi High Court CRL.M.C. 3624/2025; Justice Arun Monga; order dated 09.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023 lodged under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, against petitioner nos. 1 to 3, and of all further proceedings arising therefrom. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023 lodged under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom ought to be quashed on the basis of the amicable settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Court's answer

The dispute is an entirely family/matrimonial matter involving neither public interest nor societal concern; continuation of proceedings after the amicable settlement would be an abuse of the process of law and may defeat the very purpose of the settlement.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The trial would serve no fruitful purpose; therefore the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court.

¶20

Key takeaways

In the larger interest of justice, invoking the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR arising out of the matrimonial dispute between the private parties.ratio¶24
The instant petition is allowed; the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023 lodged under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC against petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matrimonial dispute – quashing of FIR – FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023 under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, PS Shahdara, against husband and his parents – parties amicably settled vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2024 before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts – couple resumed cohabitation and reside together with the child – complainant-wife affirmed before the Court that settlement was of her own volition, without pressure, coercion or undue influence, and she did not wish to press charges – dispute purely a family matter involving neither public nor societal interest; continuation would be an abuse of process and defeat the settlement – FIR and further proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS – reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 – petition allowed.

¶1

$~87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3624/2025 and CRL.M.A. 15934/2025

¶4

SARFARAZ MANSOORI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Parul Agarwal, Advocate with petitioners in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with SI Sonu Chahar, PS – Vivek Vihar. Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 2 with respondent no.2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 09.09.2025

¶10

Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023 lodged under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, on the basis of a compromise arrived between the parties.

¶11

Dispute arose from matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 (husband) and respondent no.2/complainant (wife) got married on 27.11.2016. One female child is born from the wedlock. Petitioner no. 2 is father and petitioner no. 3 is mother of petitioner no. 1.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have now amicably settled their differences vide the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2024 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 06/10/2025 at 12:14:53

¶15

3.1 She further submits that pursuant to the settlement, the couple has resumed their matrimonial ties and thus, further proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed.

¶16

Learned APP for the State, under instructions concur with the factum of compromise between the parties and the same has been duly verified, he informs.

¶17

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2, as well as perused the material available on record.

¶18

Parties are present in Court and I have interacted with them. On a Court query put to respondent no. 2 (complainant-wife), she candidly states that she has resolved all her differences with her husband and has entered into the settlement of her own volition, without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. Pursuant to the settlement thereto, she submits the couple are now enjoying their matrimonial bliss and have resumed cohabitation. The couple and the child are presently residing together peacefully and thus does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.

¶19

Having heard, the dispute seems to be an entirely family matter not involving either public interest or any societal interest, further proceedings would thus be an abuse of the process of law. Particularly, when the parties have amicably settled their disputes and are now enjoying matrimonial bliss after burying the hatchet. The dispute does not involve any public interest or concern of society at large. Continuation of proceedings may rather result in hostility between the parties and defeat the very purpose of settlement.

¶20

The trial would serve no fruitful purpose. Therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 06/10/2025 at 12:14:53

¶23

Reference in this context may also be had to judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

¶24

In the premise, looking at larger interest of justice, invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR in question arising out of matrimonial dispute between the private parties. 10. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 167/2023 dated 27.04.2023 lodged under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and further proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶25

ARUN MONGA, J

¶26

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 /kd

¶27

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 06/10/2025 at 12:14:53

Sarfaraz Mansoori and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraz Mansoori and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Dagar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pawan Dagar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ankur Kumar Vs Simridhi Chopra

Pankaj Thukral Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Prem Narayan Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Nitin Tyagi & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.