Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. State & Anr

Delhi High Court · 16 Jul 2025 · 2025:DHC:5673
Ravinder Dudeja
CRL.M.C. 4626/2025
2025:DHC:5673
criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and an abuse of process.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 4626/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, CRL.M.C. 4626/2025
SANJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vadlamani Seshagiri, Ms. Ananya Kukreti, Ms. Poorvi Avtar and Mr. P.K. Simantini, Adv.
Petitioners in person.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR … Respondents
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State
WITH
SI Jitender
Kumar, PS.Nangloi.
Mr. Dhananjay Sehrawat, Adv. for R-2
WITH
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 1006/2002, dated 18.11.2002, registered at P.S Nangloi, Delhi under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 17.07.1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was born on 15.04.1996 out of the said wedlock. It is submitted that due to temperamental differences Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 2 are living separately since

1999. As per allegations, respondent no.2 and her family were subjected to consistent mental and physical harassment, criminal intimidation and cruelty on account of demands for dowry by Petitioners. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR No. 1006/2002, dated 18.11.2002, at P.S Nangloi, Delhi under sections 498A/406/34 IPC.

3. During the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Mediation Settlement dated 19.05.2025 at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide Mediation NO. 1728/2025. In pursuance of the settlement Petitioner No. 1 has paid ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacs) to Respondent No. 2 as per the schedule mentioned in the Mediation Settlement. It is submitted that all conditions of the Settlement Agreement have been complied. It is submitted that respondent no.2 has obtained decree of divorce from US Court and Respondent No. 2 has agreed not to challenge the foreign divorce decree or initiate any further litigation against each other. The copy of Mediation Settlement dated 19.05.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure D.

4. Petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 2 are physically present before the Court while petitioner no.1 has entered his appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Jitender Kumar from PS Nangloi.

5. Respondent No.2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and she has no objection if the FIR No. 1006/2002 is quashed against the Petitioners.

6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 1006/2002 is quashed.

7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’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 proceedings."

8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 1006/2002, dated 18.11.2002, registered at P.S Nangloi, Delhi under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

9. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR NO. 1006/2002, dated 18.11.2002, registered at P.S Nangloi, Delhi under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

10. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JULY 16, 2025