Allowed¶8

Arohan Kapur & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Quashing of FIR – matrimonial dispute

Delhi HC24 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./6144/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quashes FIR No. 900/2020 (P.S. Rajouri Garden) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC in CRL.M.C. 6144/2022 on amicable settlement via MoU dated 19.02.2022; voluntary, uncoerced consent of respondent no. 2 verified in open court; quashing conditioned on preservation of minor child's rights applying Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava (2020) 20 SCC 787; parties bound by MoU; single-member bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.; decided 24.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 900/2020 (Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi) under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, with express preservation of the minor child's rights as per Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava, (2020) 20 SCC 787; both parties to remain bound by the MoU dated 19.02.2022. ¶8

Arohan Kapur & Ors. Vs the State & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 900/2020, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, arising out of a matrimonial dispute since amicably settled vide MoU dated 19.02.2022, should be quashed along with proceedings pursuant thereto. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Since the parties amicably resolved their differences of their own free will and without any coercion, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings, which would only create further acrimony; quashing the FIR and proceedings pursuant thereto is in the interest of justice and there is no legal impediment to it.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 900/2020 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

¶7

Key takeaways

It is clarified that the rights of the minor child will not get affected despite the quashing, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava, (2020) 20 SCC 787.ratio¶7
Both the parties are directed to remain bound by the MoU dated 19.02.2022.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — matrimonial dispute — FIR No. 900/2020, P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC — parties (petitioner no. 1 married to complainant/respondent no. 2 on 28.11.2013; one child born) amicably settled their dispute vide MoU dated 19.02.2022 with intervention of family and friends — respondent no. 2, identified by the IO, categorically affirmed before the Court that the compromise was of her own free will, without pressure, coercion or threat, and raised no objection to quashing — continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and create further acrimony; quashing held to be in the interest of justice with no legal impediment — FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed — rights of the minor child expressly preserved as per Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava, (2020) 20 SCC 787 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) — both parties directed to remain bound by the MoU. (High Court of Delhi, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.; order dated 24.09.2025.)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 6144/2022 & CRL.M.A. 35655/2024 (placing on record fresh address of R-2)

¶4

AROHAN KAPUR & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Suresh Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person.

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Pradeep Kumar. Mr. Suresh Sharma and Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates for R-2 and R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 24.09.2025

¶11

By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing No. 900/2020, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC' ).

¶12

Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶13

All the petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present before this Court and have been identified by their counsel and Investigating Officer (IO) concerned from Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized at Delhi on 28.11.2013, in

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 09/10/2025 at 14:27:25

¶17

accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is stated that one child was born out of the said wedlock. It is further stated that due to various differences, disputes and issues had arisen between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2. Upon the complaint by respondent no. 2, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioners. It is, however, stated that with intervention of the family and friends, the parties have now amicably settled their dispute vide Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19.02.2022. 5. On a query made by this Court, respondent no. 2, who has been identified by the IO, has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise out of her own free will and without any pressure, coercion or threat. Therefore, she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 6. In view of the above, that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, and without any coercion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them. It would thus be in interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶18

Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 900/2020, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed; however, it is clarified that the rights of the minor child will not get affected as per the judgment titled Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava, (2020) 20 SCC 787 , passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

¶19

The present petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 09/10/2025 at 14:27:25

¶22

In the meantime, it is directed that both the parties will remain bound by the MoU dated 19.02.2022.

¶23

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶24

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶25

SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/vc

¶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 09/10/2025 at 14:27:25

Arohan Kapur & Ors. v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arohan Kapur & Ors. v. the State & 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

Happy & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ranjan Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

R. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Sukhvir Singh Malik & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dalip Singh Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.