Bhim Sain & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 874/2016, dated 03.09.2016, registered at P.S Mangol Puri Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶15

CRL.M.C 4859/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 1.12.2025 18:20:30

¶17

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 14.02.2013 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are living separately since 22.01.2016.

¶18

As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioners. FIR No. 874/2016 was lodged at the instance of respondent no. 2 at PS Mangol Puri under sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners. Subsequently Chargesheet was filed.

¶19

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts and the terms of settlement were written in the form of Settlement Agreement dated 14.05.2024. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 have obtained divorce on 26.11.2024 and the petitioner no. 1 has paid the entire settlement amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) to respondent no. 2. The custody of the minor child shall remain with the respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1 shall not claim any visitation/custody rights as per the schedule in the settlement. Copy of the settlement agreement dated 14.05.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-4.

¶20

CRL.M.C 4859/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 1.12.2025 18:20:30

¶22

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Satish Kumar from PS Mangolpuri.

¶23

Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she has received the entire settlement and has no objection if the FIR No. 874/2016 is quashed against the Petitioners.

¶24

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 874/2016 is quashed.

¶25

Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable settlement of disputes in Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of Karnataka And Another , Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74, Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi &Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 & in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶26

Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned

¶27

CRL.M.C 4859/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 1.12.2025 18:20:30

¶29

parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC .

¶30

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶31

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 874/2016, dated 03.09.2016, registered at P.S Mangol Puri Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶32