Parveen Panwar v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6859/2025 PARVEEN PANWAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankush Narang, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr.Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with SI Rajender and SI Chetan Mr.Anand Parashar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

O R D E R

% 24.09.2025 Crl.M.A. No. 28835/2025 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.C. No. 6859/2025 1.

Petitioner herein seeks quashing of an FIR No. 234/2018 dated 07.07.2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, along with any consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise. 2.

Dispute arose from matrimonial discord between petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2/ complainant (wife). The couple got married on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and one girl child is born from the wedlock, presently in the care and custody of respondent no.2 (mother). The couple has been living separately since February, 2013. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have now settled the matter amicably before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts by entering into a Settlement Deed dated 08.01.2025. 3.1 He further submits that pursuant to the settlement, marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 17.07.2025.

3.2 Learned counsel also submits that, keeping in view that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and differences arising from their matrimonial relationship, further continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and APP for the State concur with the factum of compromise and submit that, in view of the settlement, the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

5.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 6.

The parties are present in the Court, and I have interacted with them. Upon a query put to respondent no.2, 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. 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.

Having heard, it appears that the dispute was purely a family matter with no involvement of public or societal interest. Since the complainant (wife) does not wish to press charges and there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioners, coupled with the fact that a compromise has been The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

reached, continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility, amounting to an abuse of the legal process. 8.

The genuineness of the compromise in not in dispute. However, since the Trial Court was not empowered to compound certain offences, the criminal proceedings could not be dropped. Given that the dispute has been resolved amicably and continuing with criminal proceedings would thus serve no useful purpose and would rather defeat the very purpose of the settlement and be a drain on judicial resources and abuse of the process of law.

9.

In the premise, this is a fit case for invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and it is thus deemed expedient to quash the FIR in question. Reference in this context may be had to judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

10.

Accordingly, the FIR No. 234/2018 dated 07.08.2018 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, and all other proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, I may like to make it clear that quashing of the FIR shall have no bearing on the inheritance rights of the minor qua her father.

11.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/SV The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.