Disposed¶21

Govind Kumar and Ors. v. State through SHO Ps Palam Village and Anr.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2026CRL.M.C./10085/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CRL.M.C. 10085/2024, order dated 12.03.2026, Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma: FIR No. 234/2017, PS Palam Village, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC quashed on amicable settlement (MoU dated 20.02.2023) between husband (petitioner no. 1 Govind Kumar and family) and wife (respondent no. 2); free-will compromise confirmed by respondent no. 2 before Court; minor child's custody and future rights with respondent no. 2 unaffected; affidavits filed per Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava (2020) 20 SCC 787; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 234/2017 registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, quashed; petition disposed of. ¶21

Govind Kumar and Ors. Vs State through SHO Ps Palam Village… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 234/2017 registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, quashed; petition disposed of.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 234/2017, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

Since the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings; it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶20

Key takeaways

Respondent no. 2 categorically stated before the Court that she entered into the compromise out of her own free will and without any pressure, coercion or threat, and therefore had no objection if the FIR is quashed.ratio¶18
The custody of the minor child is with respondent no. 2 and the future rights of the child will not be affected by virtue of the compromise.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma), order dated 12.03.2026 in CRL.M.C. 10085/2024: Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 234/2017, PS Palam Village, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered on a complaint by respondent no. 2, wife of petitioner no. 1 (marriage solemnized 12.07.2013; female child born 10.05.2019 in her custody). The parties had amicably settled their disputes vide MoU dated 20.02.2023. On a query by the Court, respondent no. 2, identified by the IO, categorically stated that she entered the compromise out of her own free will, without pressure, coercion or threat, and had no objection to quashing. Affidavits protecting the minor child's interest, as per Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava: (2020) 20 SCC 787, were on record, and the Court noted the child's future rights would not be affected by the compromise. Finding continuance of proceedings useless and likely to create further acrimony, and no legal impediment to quashing, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings and disposed of the petition.

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 10085/2024

¶4

GOVIND KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Shalini Goswami, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP with SI Krishan PS Palam Village

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 12.03.2026

¶10

By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing No. 234/2017, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC' ).

¶11

Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶12

All the petitioners are present before this Court and have been identified by their counsel and Investigating Officer (IO) concerned, Police Station, Palam Village, Delhi.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized at Delhi on 12.07.2013, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is stated that one female child was born out of the said wedlock on 10.05.2019, who is presently in the custody of respondent No. 2. It is stated that due to various differences,

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 18/03/2026 at 15:20:59

¶16

disputes and issues had arisen between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2. Upon the complaint by respondent no. 2, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioners. It is stated that with intervention of the family and friends, the parties have now amicably settled their dispute vide Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20.02.2023

¶17

This Court notes that the custody of minor children is with respondent no. 2 and the future rights of the child will not be affected by virtue of this compromise.

¶18

On a query made by this Court, respondent no. 2 who has been identified by the IO, has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise out of her own free will and without any pressure, coercion or threat. Therefore, she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the affidavits showing the protection of interest of minor child, as per the judgment titled as Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava: (2020) 20 SCC 787 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, have been filed and the same are on record.

¶20

In view of the above, that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will, and without any coercion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them. It would thus be in interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶21

Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 234/2017, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 18/03/2026 at 15:20:59

¶24

The petition stands disposed of.

¶25

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶26

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶27

MARCH 12, 2026/D/R

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 18/03/2026 at 15:20:59

Govind Kumar and Ors. v. State through SHO Ps Palam Village and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Kumar and Ors. v. State through SHO Ps Palam Village and 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

M/S Sms International Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S Barflex Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. through Its Ar Amit Kumar

Ashu @ Atta Vs State NCT of Delhi

Shamsher @ Rajeev Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Sunil Vs State NCT of Delhi

Raju Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Oma Kant Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO