Allowed

Ashish Kumar Singh v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./6579/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought quashing of a 498A IPC FIR after amicable settlement with wife, including resumption of cohabitation and payment of expenses. Wife and State had no objection. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on quashing upon settlement, the High Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 877/2021 under Section 498A IPC registered at PS Uttam Nagar and all consequential proceedings quashed; pending applications disposed of.

Ashish Kumar Singh Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~60

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of decision: 16.09.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 6579/2025 ASHISH KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ranveer Sharma, Adv. with petitioner through VC.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

¶7

… Respondents Through: Mr. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with SI Bharat Singh, PS Uttam Nagar along with R-2 through VC.

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT(ORAL)

¶9

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶10

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 877/2021, dated 22.12.2021, registered at P.S Uttam Nagar, Dwarka, Delhi under Section 498A IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶11

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 20.06.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of

¶12

CRL.M.C. 6579/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 17:42:09

¶14

temperamental differences Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are living separately since 11.07.2021.

¶15

As per allegations made in the FIR, complainant alleged that her petitioner subjected her to mental and physical harassment on account of dowry demands. FIR No. 0877/2021 was lodged by Respondent no. 2 at PS Uttam Nagar, Dwarka under section 498A against the petitioner.

¶16

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and executed Settlement dated 05.04.2022. In view of the aforesaid settlement, both parties have resumed cohabitation w.e.f. 05.04.2022. It is submitted that petitioner has agreed to bear all household expenses and shall pay Rs. 30,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 w.e.f. March 2022. It is further submitted that petitioner has paid Rs. 3,07,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Seven Thousand only) as litigation expenses and day to day expenditure to father of respondent no. 2. Copy of the Settlement dated 05.04.2022 has been annexed as Annexure B.

¶17

Parties have entered their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Bharat Singh from PS Uttam Nagar.

¶18

Respondent no. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and she has

¶19

CRL.M.C. 6579/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 17:42:09

¶21

resumed cohabitation with petitioner along their children and has no objection if the FIR No. 877/2021 is quashed against the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 877/2021 is quashed.

¶23

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 .

¶24

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 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 .

¶25

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any

¶26

CRL.M.C. 6579/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 17:42:09

¶28

coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶29

The petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 877/2021, dated 22.12.2021, registered at P.S Uttam Nagar, Dwarka, Delhi under Section 498A IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶30

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶31

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

¶32

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
September 16, 2025
SK

¶33

CRL.M.C. 6579/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 6.09.2025 17:42:09

Ashish Kumar Singh v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Singh v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Singh Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Rajinder Singh Birhman & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi

Pandav Kumar Vs the N.C.T. of Delhi

Azad Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Kundan Saini Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Karan Arora & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.