Disposed¶31

Munish Soni & Ors. v. State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC23 Apr 2026CRL.M.C./1656/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 1656/2026, Delhi High Court, decided 23.04.2026 by Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. Quashing of FIR No. 0351/2024 (Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Farsh Bazar) under Section 528 BNSS 2023 on basis of Compromise Deed/MOU dated 14.11.2025; matrimonial parties reconciled October 2025; State raised no objection; followed Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; FIR quashed and all proceedings closed; petition and pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 0351/2024 dated 28.06.2024 (Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi) and closure of all proceedings arising therefrom; petition stands disposed of; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶31

Munish Soni & Ors. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 0351/2024 dated 28.06.2024 (Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi) and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed in view of the Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed dated 14.11.2025 and the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Court's answer

Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, and in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, the court saw no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed; continuing with them would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties. The State (through learned APP) had no objection to quashing.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 0351/2024 dated 28.06.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S.: Farsh Bazar, Delhi is quashed; all proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.), by order dated 23.04.2026 in CRL.M.C. 1656/2026, disposed of a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 filed by Munish Soni & Ors. — the husband and in-laws of complainant/respondent No. 2 — seeking quashing of FIR No. 0351/2024 dated 28.06.2024 registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi. Quashing was founded on a Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed dated 14.11.2025; respondent No. 2 had re-joined petitioner No. 1 in October 2025 and they lived together with their minor daughter Lavanshi; the parties appeared/joined via video-conference, were identified, and respondent No. 2 confirmed all aspects of the settlement stood performed. The State (learned APP Ms. Kiran Bairwa) raised no objection. Acting in line with Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held continuance of the FIR would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony, quashed the FIR and closed all proceedings therefrom; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 1656/2026 MUNISH SONI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Kumar R. and Mr. Narendra Singh, Advocates. Petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 4 in-person. Petitioner No.3 via videoconferencing.

¶4

versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State. ASI Satandra Singh, P.S.: Farsh Bazar.

¶5

Mr. Adil Malik, Mr. Vijay Kumar and Ms. Farzana, Advocates for R-2. R-2 in-person.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶8

O R D E R % 23.04.2026

¶9

CRL.M.A. 6742/2026 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed-of.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 1656/2026

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 0351/2024 dated 28.06.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 1656/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 02/05/2026 at 11:39:37

¶18

The petition is premised on Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed dated 14.11.2025 arrived at between the parties.

¶19

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

¶20

Petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as respondent No. 2 are present in court. Petitioner No.3 has joined the proceedings via videoconferencing. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶21

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

¶22

The parties are stated to have resolved all their disputes amicably and in view of the settlement, respondent No.2 re-joined the company of petitioner No. 1 in October 2025 and they have been living together ever-since, alongwith their minor daughter.

¶23

The court has queried respondent No. 2, who confirms that a Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed dated 14.11.2025 has been signed by the parties. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

¶24

Ms. Kiran Bairwa, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

CRL.M.C. 1656/2026

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 02/05/2026 at 11:39:37

¶30

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.

¶31

Accordingly, FIR No. 0351/2024 dated 28.06.2024 registered under sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S.: Farsh Bazar, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶32

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶34

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶35

APRIL 23, 2026/ ak

¶36

CRL.M.C. 1656/2026

¶37

Page 3 of 3

¶38

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 02/05/2026 at 11:39:37

Munish Soni & Ors. v. State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Soni & Ors. v. State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tasleem Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sunil@ Lilly Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Ashwani Nain Vs the State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Umesh Goyal Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi Delhi & Ors.

Bhupender@Jokhar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Punit Kumar Vs State Gnctd and Anr.