Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14939 (DEL)

AMIT KAKKAR v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

CRL.M.C./5698/2026 · 2026-08-06

Manoj Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL.M.C. 5698/2026 1 $~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010358502026 + CRL.M.C. 5698/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23796/2026 AMIT KAKKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Digvijay Rana, Mr. Nikhil Shukla, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP with ASI Pawan Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioners herein seeks quashing of FIR No. 477/2022 dated 12.05.2022, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi for commission of offences Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. The marriage between complainant (respondent No.2 herein) and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 21.02.2008, as per Hindu rites and customs. One daughter is born from the abovesaid wedlock. 3. However, on account of temperamental differences, the parties started residing separately and when a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2, it resulted into registration of the abovesaid FIR. 4. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:10.08.2026 12:22:08 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5698/2026 2 5. However, when the matter was referred to Mediation, the parties were able to amicably resolve the matter under the aegis of Counseling Cell, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi on 15.01.2024 and have been able to resolve all their disputes and have decided to part ways gracefully. As per the terms of such settlement, custody of their child would remain with the respondent No.2 i.e. mother of the child with visitation rights to petitioner No.1, as per the terms of the MoU. 6. Copy of such settlement is placed on record. 7. It is in the abovesaid backdrop that quashing is being sought. 8. Respondent no. 2 is present in person and she has been duly identified by Investigating Officer. 9. When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates the terms of abovesaid settlement. She submits that there is already a divorce between them by way of mutual consent on 05.08.2024. She states that as per the terms of settlement, petitioner No.1 has already prepared FDR for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the name of his daughter and has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- to her towards full and final settlement in lieu of istridhan, alimony, maintenance for herself and her daughter (past, present and future). She states that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever. 10. Out of the abovesaid total settlement amount of Rs. 17,00,000/-, respondent has already received Rs.10 lacs. She has also got FIR of Rs.5 lacs in the name of her daughter. The balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been received by respondent No.2 today, in the shape of two Demand Drafts drawn on HDFC Bank and therefore, respondent No.2 submits that she would have ‘no objection’ if FIR in question is quashed. Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:10.08.2026 12:22:08 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5698/2026 3 11. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when dispute does not involve any public interest and is, primarily, private in nature. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 13. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 477/2022 dated 12.05.2022, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi for commission of offences Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed subject to petitioners depositing total cost of Rs. 20,000/- in the account of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. 14. Proof of deposit of cost and original affidavits of the parties be submitted to the learned Trial Court within further period of two weeks, so that these become part of the Trial Court Record. 15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 16. Pending application also stands disposed of. (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 6, 2026/sw/sa Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:10.08.2026 12:22:08