Sh. Tarun Yadav And ORS v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And ANR

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1898/2025 SH. TARUN YADAV AND ORS .....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Hitesh Pandey, Advocate along with petitioners in person.

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates.

SI Chitra, P.S. South Rohini.

R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 30.05.2025 1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeks quashing of FIR No. 234/2025, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. South Rohini.

3.

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 26.04.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs and one female child was born out of the said wedlock. 4.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties resided separately from 26.07.2024. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.05.2025, parties arrived at settlement. It is further stated that the parties are living together, at their matrimonial home, since 12.03.2025, alongwith their minor daughter. 6.

Petitioners and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, SI Chitra, P.S. South Rohini.

7.

The Complainant/respondent no. 2 states that the matter has been settled and she is living with petitioner no. 1 since 12.03.2025 at their matrimonial home and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the petitioners.

8.

Learned ASC for the State submits that investigation is pending in the present FIR and chargesheet is not filed yet. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

9.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

10.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

with the present FIR No. 234/2025, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. South Rohini.

11.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 234/2025, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. South Rohini, is hereby quashed.

12.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 13.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 30, 2025/bsr/pr Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.