AJAY KUMAR & Ors. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Dec 2025
- Bench
- RAVINDER DUDEJA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 498A, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after…
- Para 1010. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
- Para 1313. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. December 24, 2025 MA RAVINDER DUDEJA, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.12.2025 16:55:12
Judgment
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. with all petitioners in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC with SI Jaimal, SI Jaiveer Kumar P.S. Palam Village SI Sourabh Malik, PS KNK Marg. Mr. Paramveer, Mr. Raj Kumar, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT(ORAL) RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0482/2023, dated 29.07.2023, registered at P.S Palam Village, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.12.2025 16:55:12
The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnized on 01.12.2019 according to Hindu rites and customs. However, on account of temperamental differences Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately.
As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demands by the petitioners. FIR No. 0482/2018 was lodged at the instance of respondent no. 2 at PS Palam Village under sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.
It has been submitted that, parties have amicably resolved their disputes before Counselling Cell, Rohini Courts, New Delhi and the terms of settlement were written in the form of Settlement dated
22.03.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have happily resumed and started cohabitation since 22.03.2025, and are presently living together peacefully and harmoniously, without any dispute or grievance against each other as per the schedule in the settlement. Copy of the settlement dated 22.03.2025 has been annexed as Annexure B.
Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Jaimal, SI Jaiveer Kumar from P.S. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.12.2025 16:55:12
Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner without any force, fear, coercion and she has has no objection if the FIR No. 0482/2018 is quashed against the Petitioners.
In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 0482/2018 is quashed.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable settlement of disputes in Rangappa Javoor vs The State Of Karnataka And Another, Diary No. 33313/2019, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74, Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 & in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.12.2025 16:55:12
In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the of FIR No. 0482/2023, dated 29.07.2023, registered at P.S Palam Village, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. December 24, 2025 MA RAVINDER DUDEJA, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:24.12.2025 16:55:12
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 406, 498A, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 24 Dec 2025. The bench was RAVINDER DUDEJA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.