Writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC following a settlement and mutual-consent divorce between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. The court, relying on Gian Singh, found the settlement genuine and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
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.
$~85
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 13.05.2025 + W.P.(CRL) 94/2025, CRL M.A 855/2025
SH. SHUBHAM KAPOOR AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tarun Arora, Adv. versus THE STATE & ANR. … Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State & Mr. Abhinav Arya, Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. with SI Rajni Kant, PS Kirti Nagar. Mr. Ravinder Saini, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
W.P.(CRL) 94/2025
Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 13:28:05
December 2022. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 lodgedthe aforesaid FIR against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members.
“08.04.2025
The present non contentious petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 for quashing of the FIR NO. 146/2024 Under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. As per the submissions, the matter between the petitioners andR-2 has been amicably settled
3. Vide separate statement recorded in this behalf, petitioners stated that dispute between them and R-2 has been amicably settled as per the settlement deed dated 27.09.2024. The settlement has been arrived at between the parties herein without any force, coercion, undue influence and pressure. They have signed the settlement deed with their wish and will.
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 94/2025
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 13:28:05
Vide separate statement recorded in this behalf, R-2 stated that dispute between R-2 and petitioners has beenamicably settled as per the settlement deed dated 27.09.2024. The settlement has been arrived at between the parties herein without any force, coercion, undue influence and pressure. The settlement deed has been signed with wish and will.
4. Investigating Officer is present in Court and has duly verified the identity of both the parties. Separate statement of Investigating Officer has also been recorded.
5. The parties along with their counsels have confirmed that thesettlement deed has been duly entered into between them.
6. Learned counsel for State/APP enters appearance and accepts notice. He submits that in view of the statement recorded, let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Court
7. The compromise/settlement deed is in writing and has been duly signed by both the parties. I have heard both the parties and from the direct dialogue with both the parties, it is observed that the consent of both the parties is found to be genuine and has not been obtained under undue influence or pressure.
8. In view of the above, matter be placed before the Hon'ble Courton 13.05.2025. ”
W.P.(CRL) 94/2025
Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 13:28:05
with the Petitioners without any force, fear, or coercion. She has no objection to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 27.09.2024 and further submits that she has no objection if FIR No. 0146/2024 dated 11.03.2024under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi, along with all pending proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed against the Petitioners.
"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."
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 94/2025
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 13:28:05
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MAY 13, 2025/na
W.P.(CRL) 94/2025
Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 13:28:05
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 0146/2024 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC should be quashed pursuant to a settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs State of PunjabRelied on¶8
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shubham Kapoor and Ors.
The State
Respondent No. 2
Ravinder Dudeja
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
