Disposed¶30

Sourabh & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC20 Mar 2026CRL.M.C./1410/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC quashes 498-A/406/34 IPC FIR No. 779/2024 (PS Okhla Industrial Area) after matrimonial settlement and mutual-consent divorce; S. 528 BNSS 2023 quashing petition; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 relied on; Rs. 3,00,000 full-and-final settlement covering maintenance, stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony; minor child's rights preserved; CRL.M.C. 1410/2026; order dated 20.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of case FIR No. 779/2024 dated 16.10.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S.: Okhla Industrial Area, South East, Delhi and closure of all proceedings arising therefrom; petition and pending applications disposed-of. ¶30

Sourabh & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether case FIR No. 779/2024 dated 16.10.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners, who are the former husband and in-laws of complainant/respondent No. 2, should be quashed in view of the Settlement Agreement dated 03.07.2025 and the Divorce Decree dated 17.11.2025.

¶11

Court's answer

Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court held that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Case FIR No. 779/2024 dated 16.10.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S.: Okhla Industrial Area, South East, Delhi is quashed, and all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed.

¶28

Key takeaways

The closure of criminal proceedings pursuant to the settlement will in no way affect the property rights and other rights of the minor child, Lakshita Mahamna, vis-à-vis her parents, as may be available to her under law.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 20.03.2026) in CRL.M.C. 1410/2026: petition under S. 528 BNSS 2023 by SOURABH & ORS. — former husband and in-laws of complainant/respondent No. 2 (Ms. Rashmi Solanki) — seeking quashing of FIR No. 779/2024 dated 16.10.2024 under Ss. 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area, South East, Delhi. Premised on Settlement Agreement dated 03.07.2025 and Divorce Decree dated 17.11.2025 (mutual-consent dissolution under Ss. 13B(1)/(2), Hindu Marriage Act 1955; no appeal filed). Respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- in full-and-final settlement (Rs. 2,75,000/- earlier; Rs. 25,000/- paid in court); minor child Lakshita Mahamna in mother's custody with weekly visitation to father. State (through learned APP) raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court quashed the FIR and closed all proceedings, expressly preserving the minor child's property and other rights; petition and pending applications stand disposed-of.

¶1

$~17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 1410/2026 SOURABH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Sazia, Mr. Ankit and Ms. V. Shukla, Advocates. Petitioners in-person.

¶4

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Sonika, P.S.: Okhla Industrial Area. Mr. Vishal Kumar, Mr. Aman Ojha and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates. R-2 in-person.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

¶6

% 20.03.2026

¶7

CRL.M.A. 5645/2026 (exemption)

¶8

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶9

The application stands disposed-of.

¶10

CRL.M.C. 1410/2026

¶11

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 779/2024 dated 16.10.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Okhla Industrial Area, South East, Delhi.

¶12

The petition is premised on Settlement Agreement dated 03.07.2025 signed between the parties; and Divorce Decree dated 17.11.2025, which is the culmination of petitions under sections 13B(1) and 13B(2)

¶13

CRL.M.C. 1410/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

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 30/03/2026 at 15:35:26

¶16

of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, whereby the parties had sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

¶17

The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioners, as also of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

¶18

The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶19

The parties have confirmed that one child, viz. Lakshita Mahamna, was born from the wedlock, who is minor as of date.

¶20

No appeal is stated to have been filed from the divorce decree.

¶21

The court has queried Ms. Rashmi Solanki, respondent No. 2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that a settlement agreement has been signed between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims including towards maintenance (past, present and future), stridhan , dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony, etc., she was to receive a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from petitioner No. 1; out of which Rs. 2,75,000 /- was paid earlier and Rs. 25,000/- has been paid to her in court today, in compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

¶22

The settlement deed also records that though the minor child shall remain in the custody of respondent No.2 (mother), petitioner No.1 (father) shall have visitation rights once a week and as and when necessary.

¶23

Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

CRL.M.C. 1410/2026

Page 2 of 3

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶28

Accordingly, case FIR No.779/2024 dated 16.10.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S.: Okhla Industrial Area, South East, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶29

Needless to add that the settlement between the parties leading to the closure of all criminal proceedings by way of the present order will in no way affect the property rights and other rights of the minor child, Lakshita Mahamna vis-à-vis her parents, as may be available to her under law, in any manner whatsoever.

¶30