Jatin Solanki & ORS. v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4289/2025 JATIN SOLANKI & ORS .....Petitioners Through:

Mr. A.K. Mishra Mr. Arpit Mishra, Mr. Anik Srivastava, Mr. Manoj Kumar & Mr. Rahul , Advs. with petitioners in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State.

SI Birendra Singh, PS Lajpat Nagar Ms. Poorva Aggarwal, Mr. K. Nayyar Advs. for complainant with complainant 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. 18694/2025(Exemption) 2.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4289/2025 3.

The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeks quashing of FIR No. 757/2023, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Marilyn Joanna Khaka, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court-05, South-East, Saket 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 08.07.2022 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. 5.

No child was born out of the said wedlock.

6.

Due to matrimonial differences between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the parties started residing separately from 12.02.2023. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no. 2 (father-in-law), petitioner no. 3 (mother-in-law) and petitioner no.4 (brother-in-law).

7.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR, the latter have settled the matter with respondent no. 2/complainant before Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 21.04.2025 and in pursuance of which respondent no. 2 has no objection, if the present FIR and the subsequent chargesheet are quashed. As per the aforesaid agreement, it has been agreed between the parties that the present petition would be filed after the first motion and thereafter, the parties have agreed to file second motion petition for divorce petition between petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2/wife. As per the aforesaid settlement, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims including istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance - present, past and future. The copy of the aforesaid settlement deed dated 21.04.2025 is on record as Annexure P-2.

8.

Petitioners and complainant/respondent no. 2 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, SI Birendra Singh, PS Lajpat Nagar.

9.

The complainant/respondent No.2 states that the matter has been settled The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 The parties have undertaken to abide by their reciprocal obligations as agreed in the aforesaid settlement agreement.

10.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the chargesheet are quashed. 11.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon0'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."

12.

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. 757/2023, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Marilyn Joanna Khaka, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court-05, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi.

13.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 757/2023, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Marilyn Joanna Khaka, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court-05, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi, are hereby quashed.

14.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 15.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J JULY 4, 2025/nk 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.