CRL.M.C./7372/2026 of SARIKA VOHRA AND ORS Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

%

30.09.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of Criminal Case no. 1664/2021 arising out of FIR No. 218/2019 dated 10.05.2019 [‘impugned FIR’] registered at Shahbad Dairy under offences Section 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘IPC’] and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [‘APP’] appearing on behalf of the State, and by Mr. Pramarth Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

3. Petitioner no. 1 is physically present in Court. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing link (‘VC link’) and have been identified by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’).

4. Respondent No. 2 has joined the proceedings through VC link. She states that she is presently in the United States of America [‘USA’]. She is identified by the I.O. as well as by her counsel.

5. It is stated, in the petition, that the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Mohit Vohra (since deceased) solemnized their marriage on 13.02.2005. On 23.11.2005 a son was born out of the said wedlock, who is currently residing with Respondent No. 2. Owing to temperamental differences and marital discord, the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Mohit Vohra started living separately from June, 2018.

6. It is stated that the impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2 against Mr. Mohit Vohra and the Petitioners, who are the relatives of Mr. Mohit Vohra. Petitioners were accordingly arrayed as co-accused in the said impugned FIR.

7. Thereafter, the marriage between Mr. Mohit Vohra and Respondent No. 2 stood dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, granted vide judgement and decree dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned Family Court.

8. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 16.01.2021 against the accused and the case is currently pending before the learned JMFC and the matter is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence [‘P.E.’], next date of hearing is 06.10.2026. In the interregnum, on 23.06.2021 Mr. Mohit Vohra passed away and thereafter Respondent No. 2 settled down in the USA.

9. Ms. Smriti Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have arrived at a mutual agreement and this petition has been filed on the basis thereof. 9.1 She submits that an affidavit of Respondent No. 2 recording her ‘No Objection’ to the quashing of the impugned FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-6, at internal page 85 of the petition.

10. This Court has interacted with Respondent No. 2. She states that she is living in the USA, her marriage stands dissolved and she has taken a conscious decision to not pursue this proceeding and has agreed to have the same quashed. She states that she has no grievance against the Petitioners. 10.1 She states that she has engaged Mr. Shankar Sehgal and Mr. Pramarth Gupta, Advocates to represent her. She undertakes to have the vakalatnama placed on record.

11. Learned APP states that since this is a matrimonial dispute, the State has no objection on quashing of the impugned FIR.

12. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement may be exercised where such exercise is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The Court has further held that, where the dispute is overwhelmingly and predominantly of a private or civil nature, including disputes arising out of matrimonial or family relationships, and the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the proceedings would result in injustice despite the settlement. Similar principles were reiterated in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr2 wherein the Supreme Court held that, while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to be guided by the considerations of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of any Court.

15. In the present case, the criminal proceedings arise out of matrimonial discord between the parties, whose marriage has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Ex-husband of the Respondent No. 2, late Mr. Mohit Vohra has also been deceased. Respondent No. 2 also appeared before this Court and unequivocally affirmed that she has no objection on quashing the impugned FIR.

16. Considering the above mutual agreement between the parties and the chances of conviction of the Petitioners being remote and bleak, there is no 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 at paragraph 58 and 61 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 at paragraph 29 (29.1 -29.5)

use continuing with proceedings of the present impugned FIR as it would be misuse of the process of the Court and an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer, and would merely result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and public resources.

17. Consequently, the CC No. 1664/2021 arising out of FIR No. 218/2019 dated 10.05.2019 registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy for offences under Section 498A, 406, 34 of IPC, the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

18. Parties shall remain bound by this settlement between them.

19. Mr. Shankar Sehgal and Mr. Pramarth Gupta, Advocates appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 are directed to file their vakalatnama within one

(1) week.

20. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.

21. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/rhc/IB