Tushar Sharma & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

¶1

$~39

¶2

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

¶3

% Date of decision: 07.11.2025

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 7853/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32890/2025 EXEMPTION TUSHAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. G.P. Srivastava, Advocate with Petitioner No. 1 in person. Petitioner No. 2 through VC.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. … Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP. SI Rashmi, PS-Janakpuri. Mr. Rohit Tyagi, Ms. Mahima Tyagi, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates for R-2 with Respondent No. 2 through VC.

¶7

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

¶8

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶9

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 115/2024, dated 17.03.2024, registered at P.S Janakpuri, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶10

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant

¶11

CRL.M.C. 7853/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶12

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 7.11.2025 18:13:14

¶13

was solemnized on 09.12.2021 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Delhi. No Child was born out of the said wedlock. Due to temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2 have been living separately since 24.04.2022.

¶14

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. She further alleged that petitioner no. 1 coerced her into unnatural sex. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 498A/406/377/354/354A/34 IPC against the Petitioners.

¶15

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before and the terms of settlement were written in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2025. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained divorce by mutual consent on 02.08.2025. Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2025 has been annexed as Annexure P-2.

¶16

Petitioner No. 1 is physically present before the Court while petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 have entered their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Rashmi, from PS Janakpuri.

¶17

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

¶18

CRL.M.C. 7853/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 7.11.2025 18:13:14

¶20

has no objection if the FIR No. 115/2024 is quashed against the Petitioners.

¶21

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 115/2024 is quashed.

¶22

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 .

¶23

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 .

¶24

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

¶25

CRL.M.C. 7853/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 7.11.2025 18:13:14

¶28

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

¶29

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 115/2024 dated 17.03.2024, registered at P.S Janakpuri, Delhi under section 498A/406/34 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
November 07, 2025
SK

¶33

CRL.M.C. 7853/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 7.11.2025 18:13:14

Tushar Sharma & Anr. v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Sharma & Anr. v. the State 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

Kapil Batra and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kamaal Khan & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Hemant Kumar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Asif Siddiqui & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kamlesh Tiwari Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Harmanjeet Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi