Sh. Shyam Bachwani & ANR. v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4271/2025 SH. SHYAM BACHWANI & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma and Mr.

Sahil, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State.

SI Krishan Kumar, PS Prashant Vihar, Rohini.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Mr. Ashish L., Ms. Sheetal Bhati and Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 04.07.2025 1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 18641/2025(Exemption) 2.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4271/2025 3.

The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the BNSS) seeks quashing of FIR No. 630/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Sanya Dalal, learned JMFC, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

The marriage between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife was solemnized on 02.07.2021 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of the said wedlock.

5.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband) and petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law).

6.

On 02.02.2024, parties arrived at a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi and as per the said settlement deed, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including stridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future. The copy of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 02.02.2024 is on record (Annexure A-3).

7.

In terms of the said settlement, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 21.09.2024, passed by Shri Neeraj Gaur, Judge, Family Court (North District), Rohini Courts, Delhi (Annexure A-4). Further, as per the settlement deed, an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been paid to her in court today, by means of a demand draft. 8.

Petitioners and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer, SI Krishan Kumar, PS Prashant Vihar, Rohini. 9.

A demand draft bearing no. 013742 dated 04.07.2025 for Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank has been handed over to the complainant/Respondent No.2, who acknowledges the receipt of the same. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

10.

The complainant/respondent No.2 states that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She further states that all the terms of the agreement have been complied with. 11.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 12.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the 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 proceeding."

13.

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 with the present FIR No. 630/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Sanya Dalal, learned JMFC, Rohini Courts, Delhi. 14.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 630/2022, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Sanya Dalal, learned JMFC, Rohini Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

15.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 16.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J JULY 04, 2025/sn 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.