Allowed¶23

Tanuj Sharma & Ors. v. the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Apr 2026CRL.M.C./2820/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS; CRL.M.C.; FIR No.615/2020 PS Bindapur Dwarka; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; matrimonial dispute settled; Memorandum of Settlement 18.10.2025; Rs.30 lakh settlement; alimony and maintenance full and final settlement; divorce by mutual consent Section 13B(2) Hindu Marriage Act decree 05.01.2026; compounding/offence settled quashing; Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; exercise in futility; no objection by State; parties bound by settlement terms; Saurabh Banerjee, J.; 15.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020 registered at PS.: Bindapur, Dwarka under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶23

Tanuj Sharma & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020 registered at PS.: Bindapur, Dwarka under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020 registered at PS.: Bindapur, Dwarka under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.10.2025 between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2

¶13

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court precedents of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, since the matrimonial dispute has been voluntarily settled and there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the FIR against the petitioners will be an exercise in futility.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The parties shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves.

¶19

Key takeaways

The present petition is allowed and FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020 registered at PS.: Bindapur, Dwarka under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed; the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J.), CRL.M.C. 2820/2026, order dated 15.04.2026 — Quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed. FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020, PS Bindapur, Dwarka, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed because petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had mutually and amicably resolved their matrimonial disputes by Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.10.2025; the total settlement of Rs.30,00,000/- stood discharged (Rs.20,00,000/- already paid; balance Rs.10,00,000/- delivered by DD No. 059744 dated 25.03.2026 of Rs.5,00,000/- and Fixed Deposit dated 27.03.2026 of Rs.5,00,000/-, covering all present, past and future claims including alimony and maintenance); the marriage stood dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 vide decree dated 05.01.2026; the State APP raised no objection. Following Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that with nothing left to corroborate and prove the prosecution case, continuation of the FIR would be an exercise in futility; the parties were held bound by all terms and conditions of the settlement.

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2820/2026

¶4

TANUJ SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Mr. Manish B., Mr. Paramanand and Ms. Shweta Kumari, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Ms. Divya Bakshi and Mr. Gourav Singh, Advs.

¶8

Ms. Vandana Anand, Ms. Smriti Malik and Mr. Vishal Anand, Advs. for R-2

¶9

SI-Sangeeta Malik, PS: Bindapur

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 15.04.2026

¶13

By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020 registered at PS.: Bindapur, Dwarka under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and all proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.10.2025 ( Annexure P3 ), whereby the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 have mutually and amicably resolved their disputes.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 20/04/2026 at 11:27:27

¶16

Issue notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice and submits that she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶17

Respondent no.2, present in Court, also accepts notice and affirms the terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.10.2025. She submits that in compliance thereof the petitioner no.1, out of total settlement amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, has already paid her an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been given in the following manner: (i) DD No. 059744 dated 25.03.2026 (HDFC Bank) of Rs.5,00,000/- and (ii) Fixed Deposit dated 27.03.2026 of Rs.5,00,000/- regarding the full and final settlement of all her present, past and future claims including alimony, maintenance, etc. She further submits that her marriage with the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 vide Decree dated 05.01.2026, and as such, she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶18

The petitioners and the respondent nos.2, present in Court, as well as their credentials as on record, have been identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

Facts disclose that a settlement has already been arrived voluntarily between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 and the present petition is accompanied by their respective affidavit(s) qua the said effect. In view thereof, they shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves. As such, following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raguvanshi & Anr. : (2013) 4 SCC 58 , Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 20/04/2026 at 11:27:27

¶22

of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , since there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners will be an exercise in futility.

¶23

Thus, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.615/2020 dated 06.06.2020 registered at PS.: Bindapur, Dwarka under Sections 498A/406/ 34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶26

APRIL 15, 2026/Ab

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 20/04/2026 at 11:27:27

Tanuj Sharma & Ors. v. the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanuj Sharma & Ors. v. the State NCT 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

Kamal Ahmad Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jagtar Singh Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Suresh & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Atul Srivastav Vs State & Ors.

Gyanendra Maurya & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Niranjan Chandan Giri Alias Sonu Giri Vs State of NCT of Delhi