Delhi High Court
CRL.M.C./6744/2023 of MANAV BAJAJ & ORS. Vs THE STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 28 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010369072023 + CRL.M.C. 6744/2023 MANAV BAJAJ & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Advocate with Petitioners present. versus THE STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with
$~39
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010369072023
+
CRL.M.C. 6744/2023
MANAV BAJAJ & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through:
Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Advocate with
Petitioners present.
versus
THE STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
State with Mr. Narendra Kumar,
Advocate.
SI Akanksha Chhillar, P.S. Model
Town.
Respondent No. 2 (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
28.09.2026
1. The present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 523/2019 registered under Sections 354A/377/498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Model Town, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is premised on a settlement between the Petitioners and the complainant/Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has joined the proceedings through video conferencing. She does not dispute the execution of the Settlement Agreement dated 12th October, 2022 and confirms that she has received an amount of INR 14 lacs thereunder. However, she states that a balance amount of INR 8 lacs remains due.
2. In respect of the balance amount, Respondent No. 2 states that the 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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:59
demand draft was prepared in an incorrect name. Be that as it may, the more concerning aspect is her contention that, apart from the terms recorded in the Settlement Agreement, there was an understanding between the parties that the Petitioner, who is her former husband, would also pay maintenance for their minor child. Although no such term is expressly recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 12th October, 2022, Respondent No. 2 states that this was the understanding between the parties. She further states that she cannot single-handedly support and raise the child and, in the absence of maintenance from the Petitioner, she is not willing to consent to the quashing of the FIR.
3. In view of the above, and in the absence of the express consent of the complainant, the present petition cannot be allowed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. The Petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to avail of such other remedies as may be available in law, including, if permissible, in respect of recovery of any amount due under the Settlement Agreement dated 12th October, 2022, which forms the basis of the present petition.
5. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
6. The petition is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 as
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 05/10/2026 at 11:46:59