Sonu And ORS. v. State N.C.T. Of Delhi And ANR.
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2354/2025, CRL.M.A. 10588/2025 EXMP. CRL.M.A. 10723/2025 EXMP.
SONU AND ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advs.
Versus
STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with SI Puneet, P.S. Seemapuri and Inspector Pankaj, IO.
Ms Asawari Sodhi, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
O R D E R
% 26.09.2025 1.
Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No. 0683/2016 dated 09.07.2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. 2.
Dispute between the parties arose mainly from the matrimonial discord between petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2/ complainant (wife). The couple got married on 05.12.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. They are living separately since September, 2023. No child is born from the wedlock.
2.1 The aforesaid FIR was registered against the Sister (Petitioner no.2), The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Father (Petitioner no.3), Maternal Uncle (Petitioner no.4), Sister (Petitioner no.5), Brother-in-law (Petitioner no.6) and Sister-in-law (Petitioner no.7) of Petitioner no.1 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes by way of settlement for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- vide MoU/ Compromise Deed dated 17.08.2023. Pursuant to the settlement, marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent no.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 09.11.2023 by the competent Family Court.
4.
The learned APP for the state, under instructions concur with the factum of compromise between the parties and the same has been duly verified, he informs.
5.
In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no. 2, as well as, perused the material available on record.
6.
Complainant/Respondent no.2 is present in Court and upon interaction, she candidly submits that she has amicably resolved her differences with her husband and has entered into the settlement out of her own free will, without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence from any quarter. She further states that pursuant to the settlement, she does not wish to continue with the proceedings against the petitioners as no dispute and grievance remains unresolved with the petitioners. 7.
It transpires that not only the parties have settled the matter between them and also wish to move on in life. The complainant, therefore, does not wish to press any charges against the petitioner. On a query, she submits that the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to her in cash by the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
petitioner in Court today and nothing remains to be paid by the petitioner in terms of the compromise between the parties.
8.
Since the complainant/Respondent no.2 does not wish to press charges against the petitioners and there is no incriminating material against them coupled with the fact of compromise, further proceedings before the Court would be an abuse of the process of law. 9.
Given that the dispute has been resolved, continuing with criminal proceedings may serve no useful purpose. It would be a drain on judicial resources and abuse of the process of law, especially when dispute does not involve any public interest or interest of the society at large. Continuation of the proceedings, on the other hand, may result in hostility between the parties and defeat the very purpose of the settlement. 10.
Quashing the FIR would rather facilitate the parties in maintaining or restoring cordiality. Therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. Reference may be had to the judgement rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] in this context.
11.
Accordingly, exercising the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, it is therefore deemed expedient to quash the FIR in question arising out of matrimonial dispute. 12.
Consequently, the instant petition is thus allowed. FIR No. 0683/2016 dated 09.07.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, and all other proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
13.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/acm The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.