CRL.M.C./6946/2025 of MANISH KUMAR AND ANR Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 25.09.2025

,,,,,,,,,,+ CRL.M.C. 6946/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29163/2025EXEMPTION

MANISH KUMAR AND ANR

.....Petitioners Through: Ms. Geetmala, Mr. Ankit Sharma and Ms. Dimple Chaudhary, Advs. Petitioners in person.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with SI Pravesh, P.S.Mundka. Ms. Soni, Mr. Davender Singh Shakya and Ms. Indu Sharma, Advs. for R-2. R-2 in person.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT(ORAL)

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 572/2023, dated 06.07.2023, registered at P.S Mundka, Delhi under Sections

CRL.M.C. 6946/2025 Page 1 of 4

498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 24.06.2021 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at New Delhi. One child was born out of the said wedlock. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately since 30.03.2022.

3. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioners. Chargesheet has since been filed under sections 498A/34 IPC against the petitioners.

4. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in the form of Settlement Agreement dated 30.08.2025. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 have resumed cohabitation along their child w.e.f. 26.01.2024. Copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 30.08.2025 has been annexed as Annexure C.

5. Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Pravesh, from PS Mundka.

CRL.M.C. 6946/2025 Page 2 of 4

6. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she has resumed cohabitation with petitioner no. 1 along their child and has no objection if the FIR No. 572/2023 is quashed against the Petitioners.

7. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 572/2023 is quashed.

8. 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.

9. 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 quietus

if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC.

10. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

11. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 572/2023, dated 06.07.2023, registered at P.S Mundka, Delhi under section 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

12. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

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

September 25, 2025 SK

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J