Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4420/2025

¶4

SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Sumit Kr., Advocate alongwith petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State. SI Neha Tyagi, PS Harsh Vihar. Mr. Kapil Parashar, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 08.07.2025

¶12

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶13

CRL.M.A. 19204/2025 (exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 4420/2025

¶16

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeks quashing of FIR No. 22/2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Harsh Vihar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Nidhi Bala, learned JMFC, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

¶17

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 06.05.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 14/07/2025 at 13:01:48

¶20

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

¶21

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 08.06.2012. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant registered an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioners no. 2 to 5 (brothers-in-law).

¶22

On 04.09.2018, parties arrived at a settlement before Counselling Cell, Karkardooma Court, Delhi and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including stridhan , permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future. The copy of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 04.09.2018 is on record (Annexure P-3).

¶23

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 17.11.2022, passed by Shri Ajay Pandey, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-4). Further, as per the settlement deed, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2. 9. Petitioners and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, SI Neha Tyagi, PS Harsh Vihar.

¶24

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. She further states that all the terms of the agreement have been complied with.

¶25

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 14/07/2025 at 13:01:48

¶28

observing as under:-

¶29

“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 proceeding.”

¶30

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. 22/2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Harsh Vihar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Nidhi Bala, learned JMFC, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

¶31

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 22/2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Harsh Vihar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Nidhi Bala, learned JMFC, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶33

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

¶34

AMIT SHARMA, J JULY 08, 2025 /sn/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

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 14/07/2025 at 13:01:48

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and 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

Mohit Vs State Govt NCT of Delhi

Tarun Sharma and Ors. Vs the State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Shyam Bachwani & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Rashid & Anr. Vs the State through SHO Sagarpur, New Delhi & Anr.

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs State of NCT Delhi