Allowed¶22

Pawandeep Singh & Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Aug 2025W.P.(CRL)/910/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; matrimonial dispute; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; P.S. Tigri; section 528 BNSS; settlement/compromise dated 10.05.2024; full and final settlement Rs. 7,00,000/-; divorce by mutual consent; no objection by respondent No. 2 and State; Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied upon; quietus to dispute; W.P.(CRL) 910/2025; High Court of Delhi; Ravinder Dudeja, J.; decision dated 07.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No. 56/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Tigri and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶22

Pawandeep Singh & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR No. 56/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Tigri and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 56/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri and all proceedings emanating therefrom ought to be quashed under section 528 BNSS in view of the settlement/compromise between the parties.

¶9

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties and the fact that they have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with FIR No. 56/2023 and the consequential proceedings.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Petition allowed: FIR No. 56/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Ravinder Dudeja, J.; decision dated 07.08.2025) allowed a petition under section 528 BNSS and quashed FIR No. 56/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri, together with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (solemnized 14.06.2020 at Mohali; separated since 21.12.2021) had already been dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent. During pendency, the parties entered into a settlement/compromise dated 10.05.2024 under which the petitioner was to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as full and final settlement. Respondent No. 2, physically present and identified, confirmed receipt of the amount and consented to quashing without force, fear or coercion; the learned Additional PP for the State also had no objection. Relying on Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that the parties having put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. Pending application(s) were disposed of.

¶1

$~80

¶2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 07.08.2025

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 910/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8589/2025 EXEMPTION

¶4

PAWANDEEP SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Sakshi Kaul, Mr. Chirag Kaushal, Advs. along with P-1 in person & P-2 to 4 through VC. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. … Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. ASI Anil Kumar, PS Tigri Mr. Manoj Kumar, Ms. Madhvi Aggarwal, Ms. Suman Kathuria, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 in person

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶7

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

¶8

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶9

The present petition has been filed under section 528 BNSS seeking the quashing of the FIR NO. 56/2023 Under Sections

¶10

W.P.(CRL) 910/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶11

498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

The marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.06.2020 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Mohali. No child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, both the parties started residing separately since 21.12.2021. Subsequently the aforesaid FIR was lodged on 11.02.2023.

¶13

During the pendency of the proceedings, both the parties entered into a settlement/compromise dated 10.05.2024 and amicably settled their disputes. Both the parties agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 as full and final settlement amount. The marriage between the parties has since been dissolved by decree of divorce granted by mutual consent. A copy of the settlement deed/MOU has been placed on record which is annexed as Annexure P3.

¶14

Petitioner no. 1 & respondent no. 2 are physically present before the Court while Petitioner nos. 2 to 4 have entered their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer ASI Anil Kumar, from PS Tigri.

¶15

Respondent No.2 confirms she has received the full and final settlement amount and that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and has no objection if the FIR NO. 56/2023 Under Sections 498A/406/34 of

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 910/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶17

the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri is quashed against the Petitioners.

¶18

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR NO. 56/2023 Under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri is quashed.

¶19

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

¶20

"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."

¶21

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. 56/2023 Under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

¶22

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and FIR NO. 56/2023 Under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Tigri and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶23

W.P.(CRL) 910/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶24

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶25

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

¶26

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶27

AUGUST 07, 2025/na

¶28

4 of 4

¶29

W.P.(CRL) 910/2025 Page

Pawandeep Singh & Ors. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawandeep Singh & Ors. v. State (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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Raj Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vivek Kumar Vs State G.N.C.T of Delhi & Ors.

Vinod Chandna Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Manjeet Singh Vs State of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Mrs Rekha Tyagi & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vikash Vs State of Gnctd & Anr.

Zainul Abideen & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Annu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rk Singh through Lr Vikas Singh Vs the State(Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

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

Naresh Yadav Vs Ramesh Chander

Sandeep Verma & Anr. Vs State Govt. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dinesh Mukhiya Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi)