Subodh Kumar and Others v. State Govt N.C.T. Delhi and Another

Delhi HC6 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./8691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court quash FIR 498A/34 IPC post-settlement; Section 528 BNSS petition; FIR No. 432/2016 PS Chhawala dated 26.11.2016; chargesheet 498A/406/34 IPC; MOU 12.02.2024; Settlement Agreement 21.05.2024 Annexure P-5; Rs. 7,75,000 settlement paid; ex-parte divorce decree 04.11.2019; complainant and State no objection; Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied on; Ravinder Dudeja J.; CRL.M.C. 8691/2024.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and disposed of; FIR No. 432/2016, dated 26.11.2016, P.S Chhawala (Old), Delhi under section 498A/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶¶29

Subodh Kumar and Others Vs State Govt N.C.T. Delhi and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~42

¶2

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

¶3

% Date of decision: 06.08.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 8691/2024 SUBODH KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Furkan Ali, Advocates. Petitioners in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT N.C.T. AND ANOTHER … Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with SI Shiksha, SI Dharmveer, PS-Chhawala. Mr. Rohan Kumar, Advocate for R-2. Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶7

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

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. 432/2016, dated 26.11.2016, registered at P.S Chhawala (Old), Delhi under Sections 498A/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶11

The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 02.03.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs at

¶12

CRL.M.C. 8691/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 7.08.2025 17:04:03

¶14

Delhi. Due to temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have started living separately since 15.08.2016. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassments by petitioners on account of dowry demands. She further submits that petitioners made several attempts to kill and drove her to suicide. Chargesheet has since been filed under section 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.

¶15

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.02.2024. In view of the aforesaid settlement, Respondent No. 2 has obtained Ex-parte divorce decree on 04.11.2019. It is submitted that all conditions of the Settlement Agreement have been fulfilled including the payment of the total settlement amount of Rs. 7,75,000/(Rupees seven lacs and seventy five thousand only) as per the schedule mentioned in the Settlement Deed. Copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 21.05.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-5.

¶16

Petitioners and father of Respondent No. 2 are physically present before the Court while Respondent No. 2 has entered her appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Shiksha and SI Dharmveer, from PS Chhawala.

¶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. 8691/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 7.08.2025 17:04:03

¶20

has no objection if the FIR No. 432/2016 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. 432/2016 is quashed.

¶22

In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

¶23

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

¶24

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 432/2016, dated 26.11.2016, registered at P.S Chhawala (Old), Delhi under section 498A/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

¶25