Manish Yadav Vs the State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 153/2018, dated 03.06.2018, registered at P.S Mansarovar Park, Delhi under Sections 498A IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶12

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at New

¶13

CRL.M.C. 9848/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.10.2025 15:18:41

¶15

Delhi. One child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are living separately since 26.05.2017.

¶16

As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioner. FIR No. 153/2018 was lodged at instance of Respondent no. 2 under sections 498A IPC against the petitioner.

¶17

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.09.2020. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent no. 2 have obtained divorce on 22.05.2019 and petitioner has paid the entire settlement amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Thousand only) as per the schedule in the settlement. It is also submitted that the custody of the child is with respondent no. 2. Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.09.2020 has been annexed as Annexure P-1.

¶18

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Amit Beniwal, from PS Mansarovar Park.

¶19

Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and she has

¶20

CRL.M.C. 9848/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.10.2025 15:18:41

¶22

received the entire settlement amount and has no objection if the FIR No. 153/2018 is quashed against the Petitioner.

¶23

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 153/2018 is quashed.

¶24

Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable settlement of disputes in Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of Karnataka And Another , Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74, Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 & in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶25

Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC .

¶26

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any

¶27

CRL.M.C. 9848/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.10.2025 15:18:41

¶29

coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶30

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 153/2018, dated 03.06.2018, registered at P.S Mansarovar Park, Delhi under section 498A IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶31

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶32

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

¶33

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
October 09, 2025
SK

¶34

CRL.M.C. 9848/2024 Page 4 of 4

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.10.2025 15:18:41

Manish Yadav v. the State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Yadav v. the State of N.C.T. 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

Shri Rahul Kumar & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Neeraj Katar & Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

S. and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pesi Shavak Patel Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd. Imran Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rakesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax Office (Ito)