Keshav & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/412/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(CRL) 412/2026; Delhi High Court; Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.; decided 04.02.2026; quashing of FIR No. 153/2024, Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi; Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 IPC; matrimonial dispute; husband-wife compromise; Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.2025; voluntary consent of complainant-wife recorded; Demand Draft No. 337718 Rs. 4,50,000; settlement-based quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings; petition disposed of; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR bearing No. 153/2024 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 IPC together with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom; the petition stood disposed of. ¶¶23

Keshav & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR bearing no. 153/2024 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 IPC, and the proceedings pursuant thereto, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Since the parties amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings; continuation would only create further acrimony between them.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

It was in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto, and there was no legal impediment to quashing the FIR in question.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

FIR bearing No. 153/2024 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi for offences under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 IPC, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matrimonial-dispute FIR quashed on settlement — Writ petition sought quashing of FIR No. 153/2024, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi, registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 (wife) against her husband petitioner no. 1 and others under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 IPC. Marriage solemnized 04.12.2022; couple living separately since 20.09.2023. Parties settled vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.2025. Before the Court, respondent no. 2, identified by the IO, categorically affirmed that she entered the compromise out of her own free will, without pressure, coercion or threat, acknowledged receipt of Demand Draft No. 337718 for Rs.4,50,000/- (remaining settled amount) drawn on Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, and raised no objection to quashing. Held: with differences resolved voluntarily and without coercion, continuance of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would breed further acrimony; quashing was in the interest of justice with no legal impediment. FIR No. 153/2024 and all consequential proceedings quashed; petition disposed of (single-judge order, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J, 04.02.2026).

¶1

$~70

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 412/2026

¶4

KESHAV & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikrant, Mr. Vimal Sharma and Mr. Inderjeet Basoya, Advocates alongwith petitioners in person

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Tapish Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 in person

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R % 04.02.2026

¶9

CRL.M.A. 3818/2026 (exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 412/2026

¶13

By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing no. 153/2024, registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter „ IPC ‟). 4. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present and have been

¶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 07/02/2026 at 13:23:59

¶16

identified by their counsels and concerned Investigating Officer (IO) from Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi.

¶17

Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 04.12.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs at New Delhi. No child was born out of the said wedlock. After some time, due to certain disputes and temperamental differences, both the parties could not reside with each other and since 20.09.2023, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have started living separately from each other. Thereafter, on the complaint of respondent no.2, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners under the relevant sections. It is stated that both the parties have amicably settled the present matter vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.2025.

¶18

On a query made by this Court, respondent no.2 who has been identified by the concerned IO, has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise out of her own free will and without any pressure, coercion or threat. It is also stated by respondent no. 2 that she has received Demand Draft bearing No. 337718 in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi towards the remaining settled amount. Respondent no. 2 further states that she has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

¶19

In view of the above fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will, without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them. It would thus be in interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶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 07/02/2026 at 13:23:59

¶22

Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 153/2024, registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/354/377/34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶23

In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶24

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶25

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 04, 2026/ns/ GJ

¶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 07/02/2026 at 13:23:59

Keshav & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satender Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sh Varun Arora & Ors. Vs the State of Delhi & Anr.

Ms. Sandhya Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manish Kumar @ Tinu Vs State of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary & Ors.

Awdhesh Yadav Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Smt Chandramani Devi and Anr. Vs State of Govt of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Salman Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Mahendra Nahata Vs State & Anr.

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Gnct of Delhi

Manish Kumar @ Tinu Vs State of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary & Ors.

Mohammad Mujeeb Ahmad Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Preeti Sharma Vs Anuj Sharma

Xxxxxxxxxxxx Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ajay S. Mittal Vs Directorate of Enforcement