Matrimonial dispute FIR for cruelty and dowry offences was quashed after husband and wife settled all claims via an MOU, completed payment, and obtained mutual-consent divorce; the complainant and State consented.
FIR No. 533/2020 (498A/406/34 IPC), PS Farsh Bazar, and consequential proceedings including chargesheet quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~78
Through: Mr. Jayant Pawar, Adv. (throughVC) Petitioners in-person, through VC.
versus
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State. SI Yashpal Singh, PS Farsh Bazar. R2 in-person, through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:08:47
petitioner no. 2 (father-in-law), petitioner no. 3 (mother-in-law) and petitioner no. 4 (brother-in-law).
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:08:47
proceedings emanating therefrom including the chargesheet are quashed. She further states that all the terms of the settlement agreement/MOU have been complied with. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR and the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom including the chargesheet are quashed. 9. The matter was placed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), who has recorded the statements of both the parties and passed the following order dated 25.02.2025:
“Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 2 Sh. Ajeet Singh has appeared through VC; and has reported that the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- handed over to Respondent no. 2 on the last date of hearing stands duly realized. Further, he states that Respondent no. 2 has no objection if the FIR No. 533/2020, Under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, PS Farsh Bazar, Delhi and all proceedings emanating there from are quashed qua the petitioners.
The statement of Respondent no. 2 to ascertain the veracity and the genuineness of the parties entering into settlement was recorded on 10.02.2025. The compromise/MOU/Settlement dated 30.08.2024 entered into between the parties is on record as Annexure P-6 at page no. 81. As per the settlement, the Respondent no. 2 has now received the total settlement amount towards her article, stridhan as well as towards alimony and maintenance past, present and future. There is no child born out of the wedlock. Respondent no. 2 has also been granted divorce by Mutual consent in HMA No. 1567/2024 vide divorce decree dated 17.12.2024 as Annexure P-9 at page no. 90.
Respondent no. 2 has been identified by her counsel. This pre verified report along with the petition may be placed before the Hon’ble Court on 10th March, 2025 alongwith the statements recorded today.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:08:47
Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-
“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 proceeding.”
AMIT SHARMA, J
MARCH 10, 2025/ kr/Pc Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:08:47
1 issue framed by the court
Should FIR No. 533/2020 (498A/406/34 IPC) and consequent proceedings be quashed following full settlement and divorce between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶10
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vineet Bansal and others
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Amit Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
