Allowed¶27

Manak Vedwal & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Jul 2026CRL.M.C./4433/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CRL.M.C. 4433/2026, decided 01.07.2026 by Madhu Jain, J. Quashing of FIR No. 107/2024, PS Palam Village (Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC) on basis of settlement between husband's family (Manak Vedwal & Ors.) and complainant-wife (Respondent No.2); mediation at Dwarka Courts; divorce by mutual consent dated 22.11.2025; settled amount Rs.7,50,000/- fully paid including Rs.2,50,000/- by Demand Draft No. 552154 tendered in Court; Respondent No.2 gave free-will consent and no objection; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 107/2024 (PS Palam Village) under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed; petition along with pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶27

Manak Vedwal & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 107/2024 (PS Palam Village) under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed; petition along with pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 107/2024 registered at Police Station Palam Village, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, ought to be quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the parties having amicably resolved all their disputes, the marriage standing dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the entire settlement amount having been paid, and Respondent No.2 having no objection to the quashing, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings; continuation would only perpetuate unnecessary litigation and there is no legal impediment to quashing the FIR in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 107/2024, registered at Police Station Palam Village, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — matrimonial dispute settled. The Delhi High Court (Madhu Jain, J.) quashed FIR No. 107/2024, Police Station Palam Village, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC, registered on a complaint by Respondent No.2, along with all consequential proceedings. The parties had resolved all disputes before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi; the marriage (solemnized 23.11.2019, separated since 15.04.2021) stood dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 22.11.2025 (Family Court, Dwarka); the entire settled amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid, the balance Rs.2,50,000/- being handed over in Court by Demand Draft No. 552154; and Respondent No.2, identified by the IO, affirmed voluntary settlement and no objection to quashing. Holding that continuance would serve no useful purpose and would only perpetuate unnecessary litigation, and that there was no legal impediment to quashing, the Court disposed of the petition.

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4433/2026 & CRL.M.A. 18295/2026

¶4

MANAK VEDWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. with all three petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State.

¶8

SI Rajesh Chauhan, PS Palam Village.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 01.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶13

By way of the present petition, the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 107/2024 , registered at Police Station Palam Village, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ IPC ’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Issue notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice.

¶15

The Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are present before this Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned.

¶16

Briefly stated, the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 23.11.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. Owing to matrimonial disputes, the parties started residing separately with effect from 15.04.2021. Pursuant to a complaint

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 03/07/2026 at 11:34:26

¶19

lodged by Respondent No.2, the present FIR came to be registered against the Petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, and entered into a settlement. The marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 has also been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 22.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the entire settled amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been paid to Respondent No.2. He submits that the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been handed over to Respondent No.2 today in Court by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 552154. It is further submitted that, with the said payment, the terms and conditions of the settlement stand fully complied with and nothing further remains to be paid by either party under the settlement.

¶21

On a query made by this Court, Respondent No.2, who has been duly identified by the IO, categorically states that she has entered into the settlement out of her own free will, without any force, coercion or undue influence. She further states that the entire settled amount has been received by her and that she has no surviving claim whatsoever against the Petitioners. She has no objection if the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶22

In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes, the marriage already stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the entire settlement amount has been paid, and Respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, no useful purpose would be

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 03/07/2026 at 11:34:26

¶25

served in continuing the criminal proceedings. Rather, continuation thereof would only perpetuate unnecessary litigation between the parties. There is no legal impediment to quashing the FIR in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶26

Accordingly, FIR No. 107/2024 , registered at Police Station Palam Village, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34/323/506 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶27

The present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶28

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶29

MADHU JAIN, J

¶30

JULY 1, 2026/ prg/p

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 03/07/2026 at 11:34:26

Manak Vedwal & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manak Vedwal & Ors. v. State of 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljeet Singh Mehlawat Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Pawan Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Monu Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Abhinav Arora & Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Nakul Srivastav & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Handa & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.