CRL.M.C. 657/2023 $~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 657/2023 and CRL.M.A. 2578/2023, CRL.M.A. 2279/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20746/2025 SANJAY KUMAR TIWARI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State. Respondent no. 2/ Complainant in person (through VC). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 18.09.2025 1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No. 163/2012 dated 11.06.2012 under Sections 419, 420 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Crime Branch as well as quashing of all the proceedings emanating therefrom. A compromise has now been arrived between the complainant and the petitioners (accused). 2. Learned APP for the State, upon instructions, confirms that although the charge sheet has been filed, no cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate so far. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent as well perused the material available on This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 13:00:58 CRL.M.C. 657/2023 record. 4. Petitioners are present in person, and I have interacted with the complainant/ respondent no. 2, who has joined through video conferencing and has been identified by the Investing Officer. 5. On a query to the Respondent 2, he candidly submits that he has entered into a compromise on his own volition without any duress or coercion and does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners in view of settlement arrived between them. Continuation of further criminal proceeding especially when dispute does not involve any public interest or interest of the society at large, would be abuse of process of law and a drain on judicial resources. 6. The parties have amicably resolved their dispute, which is purely personal in nature, and allowing the prosecution to continue may not only foster animosity between the parties but also undermine the very purpose of the settlement. 7. Moreover, continuing with the trial would serve no meaningful purpose, would result in unnecessary judicial burden and, also frustrate the objective of settlement between the parties. Reference may be made to judgment rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] in this context. 8. Nature of dispute in any case seems to be civil and commercial in nature and has been given a colour of criminal culpability. 9. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and exercising the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR arising from this matrimonial dispute. 10. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. FIR No. 163/2012 dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 13:00:58 CRL.M.C. 657/2023 11.06.2012 under Sections 419, 420 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Crime Branch and the criminal proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 kd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 13:00:58