Allowed¶20

Sayan Ghosh & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC5 May 2025CRL.M.C./801/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, CRL.M.C. 801/2025, Justice Girish Kathpalia, decision 05.05.2025: quashing of FIR No. 26/2022 PS Dwarka North (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC — cruelty by husband/relatives, criminal breach of trust, joint participation) after matrimonial compromise between petitioner Sayan Ghosh and respondent no.2; mutual consent divorce decree dated 20.07.2024; full and final settlement paid; minor son's custody with mother, child's rights left open; pending application CRL.M.A. 3745/2025 disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application (CRL.M.A. 3745/2025) disposed of. ¶20

Sayan Ghosh & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings arising therefrom quashed; pending application (CRL.M.A. 3745/2025) disposed of.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed, given that the petitioners have compromised the matrimonial disputes with the complainant de facto (respondent no.2) and respondent no.2 does not wish to continue with the proceedings.

¶12

Court's answer

Having interacted with the parties, the court was satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push them further through trial, and therefore allowed the petition.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom were quashed; the pending application was disposed of.

¶20

Key takeaways

It was made clear that all rights concerning the minor child of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 shall remain open, even though his custody continues with respondent no.2.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J.) — Criminal Miscellaneous Application: Petitioners Sayan Ghosh & Anr. sought quashing of FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North registered for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the matrimonial disputes underlying the FIR had been compromised. Respondent no.2 (complainant de facto) submitted she did not want to continue with the proceedings. The parties confirmed: mutual-consent divorce decree dated 20.07.2024; entire full and final settlement amount already paid by petitioners to respondent no.2; and continued custody of the parties' minor son (about 8 years old) with respondent no.2, with all rights of the child expressly kept open. After interacting with the parties, the Judge was satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push them further through trial, and accordingly quashed FIR No. 26/2022 and the proceedings arising therefrom, disposing of pending application CRL.M.A. 3745/2025.

¶1

$~82

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 05.05.2025

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 801/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3745/2025

¶5

SAYAN GHOSH & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Rohin Singh Pande, Advocate with Petitioner no.1 & 2 in person.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State with SI Mahesh Yadav, PS Dwarka North.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and the proceedings arising out of the same as they have compromised the disputes with the complainant de facto (respondent no.2 herein). Both petitioners as well as respondent no.2 have appeared personally and are identified by their respective counsel and Investigating Officer /SI Mahesh Yadav.

¶13

I have spoken with the parties. It is submitted by both sides that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have compromised their matrimonial

¶14

CRL.M.C. 801/2025 Page 1 of 2 pages

¶15

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.05 19:54:00 +05'30'

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 5.05.2025 20:16:59

¶18

disputes. The respondent no.2 has also settled her disputes with petitioner no.2. It is submitted by both sides that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have got their marriage dissolved by way of decree dated 20.07.2024 of divorce with mutual consent and petitioners have already paid entire full and final settlement amount to respondent no.2. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have a son presently aged about 8 years and his custody is with respondent no.2, which shall continue to be so. However, it is made clear that all rights of the minor child of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 shall remain open.

¶19

Under these circumstances, respondent no.2 submits that she does not want to continue with the impugned proceedings.

¶20

Having interacted with the parties, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push them further through trial. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 26/2022 of PS Dwarka North for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.

¶21

Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.05 19:53:41 +05'30'

¶22

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

¶23

MAY 05, 2025/ DR

¶24

CRL.M.C. 801/2025 Page 2 of 2 pages

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 5.05.2025 20:16:59

Sayan Ghosh & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayan Ghosh & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Vs State NCT of Delhi

Urmila Mehra Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Barkat Ali Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Dilshad Hussain Vs Pushpa Devi

Raman Sokhal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Maujam Vs the State NCT of Delhi