Vicky & ORS. v. The State NCT Of Delhi And ANR
$~68 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ VICKY & ORS.
.....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Naveen Bansal, Mr. Mahender Kumar and Mr.
Pradeep Kumar, Advocates with petitioner in person.
versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State.
Mr. Ravi Yadav, P.S.Govindpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
O R D E R
% 05.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3922/2026 (exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed-of.
By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are former husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 322/2021dated 09.05.2021 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') at P.S.: Govind Puri, Delhi.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
2.
The petition is premised on Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') dated 02.06.2025; and Divorce Decree dated 02.09.2025, which is the culmination of petitions under sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, whereby the parties had sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
3.
The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioners, as also of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs. 4.
The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.
5.
Though there were 05 accused persons in the FIR, the mother-in-law viz. Premwati has passed-away on 18.02.2025; and therefore, there are only 04 petitioners in the present proceedings. 6.
Respondent No.2 is present in court today. Upon being queried, she clarifies that though the MoU records that "two female child were born aged about 08 years", she has only one minor daughter, who is residing with her. She further submits, that she has been living separately from her husband and his family since 10.06.2016. 7.
No appeal is stated to have been filed from the divorce decree. 8.
Respondent No. 2 also confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that an MoU has been signed between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims including towards maintenance (past, present and future), stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony, etc., she was to receive a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- from petitioner No. 1; out of which Rs. 1,40,000/- was paid earlier and Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid in court today, in compliance The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of the terms of the MoU. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.
9.
Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.
10.
In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties. 11.
Though the settlement deed does not record anything about the visitation rights of the father/petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 states that petitioner No.1 shall have visitation rights in respect of his daughter, though the custody of the daughter will remain with her. 12.
Needless to add that the settlement between the parties leading to the closure of all criminal proceedings by way of the present order will in no way affect the property rights and other rights of the minor female child vis-à-vis her father, as may be available under law, in any manner whatsoever.
13.
Subject to the aforesaid conditions, FIR No.
322/2021dated 09.05.2021 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S.: Govind Puri, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
14.
Petition stands disposed-of.
15.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 5, 2026 V.Rawat The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.