PRABHAT KUMAR DEEPAK & ORS. v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Delhi High Court quashes Mehrauli 498A/406 FIR after complainant wife settles disputes with husband and family
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 382/2024 of PS Mehrauli (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and all proceedings arising from it, noting the complainant had compromised the disputes and the State had no objection.
Why it matters: Shows the court quashing a matrimonial cruelty and breach-of-trust FIR on the basis of a settlement, where it found it in the interest of justice to avoid a full trial.
Summary written with AI and checked against the judgment text. It is not part of the judgment; read the full text or PDF.- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case number
- CRL.M.C. - 1628/2026
- Date of judgment
- 30 October 2026
- Petitioner / Appellant
- PRABHAT KUMAR DEEPAK & ORS.
- Respondent
- STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
- CNR
- DLHC010077882026
- Outcome
- Allowed
CRL.M.C. 1628/2026 Page 1 of 2 pages $~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010077882026 + CRL.M.C. 1628/2026 PRABHAT KUMAR DEEPAK & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Counsel for petitioners ( appearance not given)
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.
Mr. Devrat Yadav, Advocate for R-2
with R-2.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 382/2024 of PS Mehrauli for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on the ground that the complainant de facto (respondent no.2) has compromised the disputes with the petitioners.
2. State has no objection to this petition. Statements of parties have already been recorded by the concerned Joint Registrar.
CRL.M.C. 1628/2026 Page 2 of 2 pages
3. The respondent no.2 is present today and is identified by IO/SI Manoj Kumar. I have spoken with respondent no.2 in Hindi and it is stated by her that she has compromised all disputes with the petitioners. Marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 stands already dissolved by way of decree of divorce. No child was born from the wedlock of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 submits that she has received complete full and final settlement amount in lieu of her entire stridhan and maintenance. Respondent no.2 submits that now she does not wish to continue prosecution of petitioners.
4. Having spoken with respondent no.2, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push the parties through full dress trial.
5. Therefore, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 382/2024 of PS Mehrauli for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC as well as proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 30, 2026/ry