Pawan Kumar Anthony and Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Neeraj P.S. Subzi Mandi. Ms. Charu Bhardwaj and Mr. Anubhav Rajput, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

% 01.08.2025

¶15

A Petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.638/2015 dated 14.12.2015 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on 08.02.2014 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to temperamental difference, the Respondent

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 05/08/2025 at 12:05:36

¶19

No.2 left the matrimonial house in April 2015 and started residing separately.

¶20

It is further submitted that on 14.12.2015, on the complaint of respondent No. 2, an FIR bearing No. 638/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 Prohibition of Dowry Act got registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi.

¶21

It is stated that during the trial, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, where both the parties amicably settled all the disputes and differences before Mediation Centre, vide Compromise Deed dated 08.07.2024, and it was inter alia settled between the parties that the respondent No. 2/wife and the petitioner No. 1/husband shall dissolve their marriage by decree of mutual consent. It is stated that petitioner No. 1/husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- to the respondent No. 2/wife towards full and final amount of all the claims of the respondent No. 2/wife. It is also stated that the petitioner No. 1 has already paid Rs. 2,30,000 to respondent No. 2/wife.

¶22

It is further stated that the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- has been paid by the petitioner No. 1/husband to the Respondent No.2/wife today in the Court vide D.D. No.504045 dated 31.07.2025 drawn on ICICI Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi and the same has been confirmed by Respondent No.2/wife.

¶23

It is also stated that on 04.07.2022, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had been dissolved as per Hindu law.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 05/08/2025 at 12:05:36

¶26

In view of the Compromise Deed dated 08.07.2024, the present petition has been filed.

¶27

The parties are present before this Court in-person today, and have been identified by their counsel and Investigating Officer concerned. The parties have endorsed the amicable settlement and accepted the terms thereof voluntarily.

¶28

The parties have submitted that all the disputes have been amicably settled vide Compromise Deed dated 08.07.2024 and thus, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing with the FIR.

¶29

The present petition has been signed by all the parties and is supported by their respective affidavits. The parties have reaffirmed the terms of the settlement arrived at vide Compromise Deed dated 08.07.2024 and they also submit that the said Compromise Deed has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure and coercion.

¶30

Today, the complainant/respondent No. 2/wife, who is present in Court, states that she has received all amounts due to her and has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

¶31

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion and also the fact that the present matter is a family matter, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 05/08/2025 at 12:05:36

¶34

Moreover, there is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶35

Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 638/2015 registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 Prohibition of Dowry Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶36

The petition stands disposed of along with the pending Application(s).

¶37

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶38

AUGUST 1, 2025/va

¶39

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 05/08/2025 at 12:05:36

Pawan Kumar Anthony and Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Anthony and Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Directorate of Enforcement Vs Sanjeev Kapoor

Ravi Kumar Vs State(Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Smt Poonam Sharma & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Leela Wati Vs State of the NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mawasi Ram & Anr. Vs the State ( Govt, N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.