Allowed

Shanti Devi v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./6698/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of a dowry-related FIR against the petitioner after the parties settled through mediation; the complainant confirmed receipt of the settlement amount with no objection, and the State raised no objection.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 697/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings quashed against the petitioner.

Shanti Devi Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~39

¶2

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

¶3

% Date of decision: 19.09.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 6698/2025 & CRL.M.A. 28208/2025 EXEMPTION SHANTI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shivani Singh, Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. … Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP with SI Sonu Jha, PS-Welcome. Ms. Mamta Garg and Mr. Anmol, Advocates for R-2 with Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶6

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

¶7

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶8

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 697/2015, dated 28.12.2015, registered at P.S Welcome, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶9

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner’s son (since deceased) and Respondent

¶10

CRL.M.C. 6698/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶11

no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 20.11.2011 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. One girl child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner’s son and Respondent No. 2 were living separately.

¶12

As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioner, her son and husband (both since deceased). Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 498A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and other accused and charges have since been framed. During pendency of the proceedings petitioner’s son and husband expired and proceedings qua them stands abated.

¶13

It has been submitted that during pendency of the case, husband and father in law of respondent no. 2 have expired and the parties have amicably resolved their disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a Mediation Settlement dated 10.01.2025. In view of the aforesaid settlement, petitioner has paid the entire settlement amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to respondent no. 2 as per the schedule in the settlement. It is submitted that the custody of the child is with respondent no. 2 until she attains majority. Copy of the Mediation Settlement dated 10.01.2025 has been annexed as Annexure D.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 6698/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶15

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Sonu jha, from PS Welcome.

¶16

Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and she has received the entire settlement amount and has no objection if the FIR No. 697/2015 is quashed against the Petitioner.

¶17

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 697/2015 is quashed.

¶18

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 .

¶19

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

¶20

CRL.M.C. 6698/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶21

if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC .

¶22

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

¶23

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 697/2015, dated 28.12.2015, registered at P.S Welcome, Delhi under section 498A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶24

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶25

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

¶26

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶27

September 19, 2025 SK

¶28

CRL.M.C. 6698/2025 Page 4 of 4

Shanti Devi v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi v. the State NCT of Delhi and 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

Anil D Kaneria Vs Orient Bell Limited & Anr.

Vipin Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Shabban Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Dharmender & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Himanshu Mittal Vs Regional Passport Office Delhi & Anr.

Sanidhya Garg Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi