Renu v. State Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS.
$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7131/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29984/2025 RENU .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Arun Kr. Singh, Advocate.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with SI Snehlata, PS Aman Vihar.
Mr. Durgesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
O R D E R
% 09.10.2025 1.
Petitioner herein seeks quashing of an FIR No. 1136/2018 dated 13.11.2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi, along with any consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise. 2.
The petitioner/ complainant (wife) and respondent no.2 (husband) got married on 10.12.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, due to temperamental differences, the couple has been living separately CRL.M.C. 7131/2025 Page 1 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
since July 2017. One male child is born from the wedlock who is presently in the care and custody of respondent no. 2/ father. 3.
Respondent no.3 is the father, respondent no.4 is the mother and respondent no.5 is the sister of respondent no.2. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have now amicably settled the matter vide MoU/ Separation Deed dated 18.11.2021 which is placed on record as Annexure P-2.
4.1 He also submits that pursuant to the settlement, first motion of divorce has already been granted by the learned Family Court under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide order dated 13.09.2025 and second motion of divorce is yet to be filed in due course to obtain divorce by mutual consent.
4.2 He further submits that in view of the settlement, the present FIR deserves to be quashed as further proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
5.
Learned counsel for respondents and the learned APP for the State both concur with the factum of the compromise between the parties and convey their no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question. 6.
In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 7.
The complainant is present in the Court, and I have interacted with her. Upon a Court query, 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, respondent no.2 has complied with the terms of the settlement to her satisfaction and nothing CRL.M.C. 7131/2025 Page 2 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
remains payable to her. She thus, submits that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the respondents and further states that, having obtained the first motion decree of divorce, the parties are now proceeding to file the second motion by mutual consent.
8.
Having heard, the dispute appears to be a purely 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 respondents, coupled with the fact that a compromise has been reached through a financial settlement and that the couple are now proceeding towards divorce by mutual consent, continuing with the criminal proceedings would thus be an exercise in futility, amounting to an abuse of the legal process. Furthermore, it would place an unnecessary burden on the judicial system and lead to the wasteful expenditure of public resources by the prosecution.
9.
The trial would thus serve no fruitful purpose and further proceedings would rather result in hostility between the parties, defeating the very purpose of their settlement. In view thereof, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. Reference in this context may also be made to judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. 10.
Accordingly, in the larger interest of justice, invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 the FIR No. 1136/2018 dated 13.11.2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi, and all other proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. However, I may like to CRL.M.C. 7131/2025 Page 3 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
make it clear that quashing of the FIR shall have no bearing on the inheritance rights of the minor quahisfather. 11.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J OCTOBER 9, 2025/rs/nk CRL.M.C. 7131/2025 Page 4 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.