Ramvati & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4246/2025

¶4

RAMVATI & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocates alongwith P-3 to 7 in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State. SI Suresh Kr. Meena, PS New Usmanpur. Mr. Vijayant Kumar, Advocate for R- 2 alongwith R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 03.07.2025

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 of the CrPC) seeks quashing of FIR No. 136/2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Sonika, learned JMFC, North East District, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi.

¶12

The marriage between the petitioner no.2/husband and the respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 19.02.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and two children were born out of the said wedlock.

¶13

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 07/07/2025 at 12:05:22

¶14

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 2, the latter registered the present FIR against petitioner no. 1 (mother-inlaw, who has since passed away), petitioner no. 2 (husband, who has since passed away), petitioner no. 3 (father-in-law) and petitioners no. 3 to 7 (sisters-in-law).

¶15

On 15.05.2025, petitioners no. 3 to 7 have arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding with respondent no.2, whereby the parties have agreed to settle their disputes and in pursuance of the said MoU, respondent no.2 has no objection if the present FIR along with pending chargesheet is being quashed. 6. Petitioners no. 3 to 7 submit that custody of the minor daughters shall remain with respondent no. 2 and the petitioners no. 3 to 7 will have no visitation rights.

¶16

Petitioners 3 to 7 and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer, SI Suresh Kr. Meena, PS New Usmanpur.

¶17

The Complainant/respondent No.2 states that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the petitioners no. 3 to 7. The parties have undertaken to abide by their reciprocal obligations as agreed to in the MoU as well as the aforesaid statement made before this Court. 9. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

¶18

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would

¶19

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 07/07/2025 at 12:05:22

¶20

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.”

¶21

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 136/2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Sonika, learned JMFC, North East District, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi.

¶22

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 136/2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet filed and pending before the Court of Ms. Sonika, learned JMFC, North East District, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi, is hereby quashed.

¶23

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶25

JULY 03, 2025 /sn

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶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 07/07/2025 at 12:05:22

Ramvati & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvati & Ors. v. the 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

Vikash Bidhuri Vs State (Nct) of Delhi and Ors.

Pinky Jethwani Vs Union of India and Anr.

Omid Nazari & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Lokender Singh Vs State through SHO Ps Ranhola

Dinesh Kumar Vs Subhash Singh

Asha Rani Gupta Vs Rudresh Pratap Singh