Petition sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Dwarka North. The court held that mere registration of an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence does not merit quashing without further investigation and disposed of the petition as premature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~83
SUNITA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parveen Tyagi, Mr. Nishu Tyagi and Mr. Ujjawal Tyagi, Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (CRL) with Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates Mr. Vikram Singh Jakhar, Advocate for R-2 (through VC)
Submissions heard.
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 15/12/2025 at 12:43:57
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2025 N
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 15/12/2025 at 12:43:57
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR registered a month earlier, before investigation commenced, can be quashed under Article 226/Section 528 BNSS.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sunita
State NCT of Delhi
Anr.
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
