Avinash Ojha @Bholu v. State NCT Of Delhi And ANR
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4397/2025 AVINASH OJHA @BHOLU .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Amit Bidhuri, Mr.
Rohish Arora, Mr. Rishal Kumar and Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advs. with petitioner in person.
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Sunil Kumar, P.S.
Ambedkar Nagar with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
O R D E R
% 08.09.2025 1.
The petitioner herein seeks compromise quashing of an FIR No. 139/2025 dated 04.03.2025, under Sections 69 & 351(2) of BNS registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 2.
Per the FIR, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 became friends over Instagram and started meeting which led to physical relations with each other with a promise of marriage. The parties kept meeting with each other and this continued for years. After about 4 years, the petitioner refused to marry the respondent, which led to the registration of the FIR on The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
04.03.2025.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 got married with each other on 14.04.2025 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Khirki Village, Press Enclave Road, New Delhi and got their marriage registered on 16.04.2025 before the Office of District Magistrate.
3.1 Since their marriage, the parties are living together peacefully as husband and wife. They have now amicably settled the dispute arising out of promise of marriage vide Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 02.07.2025 which bear their signatures. They parties submit that the MoS has been arrived at between them without any force, undue influence, coercion or threat.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the respondent no. 2 has also signed an affidavit with regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties and she is willing to get the present FIR quashed.
4.
Parties are present in person in the Court and I have interacted with them. On a Court query, complainant, now wife, candidly submits that when the FIR was lodged, she was under extreme duress and under mental pressure as her attempts to persuade the petitioner for marriage did not yield any result. Therefore, she had no choice but to doubt his intentions. 5.
Later on, it turned out that the petitioner had no intention to cheat and she was misguided to level allegations against the petitioner which ultimately proved to be false in view of their marriage. She states that she took the extreme step of lodging FIR against her own husband due to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
misunderstanding. She states that now she loves the petitioner dearly after their marriage who is equally looking after with her full satisfaction. She further submits that she did not intend the FIR to be an invitation to the marriage but, unfortunately, the extreme step had to be taken in the peculiar circumstances, as enumerated above. She states that she has buried the hatchet with her husband and they are presently residing together peacefully. 6.
On a court query, qua the veracity of the compromise and marriage between the parties, the learned APP for the State, under instructions, does not dispute it.
7.
In view of the above, further proceedings in the present matter would be an abuse of process of law, especially where the parties have amicably settled their dispute, which does not harm any public interest or interest of the society at large. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings may result in hostility between the parties and defeat the very purpose of settlement.
8.
On the other hand, quashing would result in maintaining the much desired cordiality between the petitioner and complainant/respondent no.2, who want to lead their married life peacefully together. 9.
Moreover, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would unnecessarily burden the administrative and judicial system and waste the valuable time of the investigating agencies and the Court. In this context, reference may be had to judgment rendered in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303.
10.
Consequently, FIR No. 139/2025 dated 04.03.2025, under Sections 69 & 351(2) of BNS registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and all proceedings emanating 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.
11.
Petition is allowed as above. The parties shall remain bound by the statements made in Court today.
12.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 acm The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.