Allowed¶32

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2026CRL.M.C./4666/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 4666/2026; Delhi High Court; Justice Saurabh Banerjee; quashing of FIR; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; matrimonial dispute; MoU dated 31.05.2025; settlement Rs.15,00,000/-; demand drafts Yes Bank; Section 13B(2) Hindu Marriage Act divorce decree 02.08.2025; PS Punjabi Bagh; FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024; Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; FIR quashed after settlement between husband and wife.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024 registered at PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom; parties bound by the terms of their settlement. ¶32

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024 registered at PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, should be quashed in view of the MoU dated 31.05.2025 whereby petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have mutually resolved their disputes.

¶24

Court's answer

Since a settlement was voluntarily arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 and nothing is left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the FIR against the petitioners would be an exercise in futility; following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners and respondent no.2 shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves.

¶31

Key takeaways

The present petition is allowed and FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024 registered at PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, as also all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J.) allowed a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024, PS Punjabi Bagh, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had mutually resolved their matrimonial disputes through an MoU dated 31.05.2025; out of the total settlement of Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- stood paid and the balance Rs.5,00,000/- was tendered by two demand drafts as full and final settlement of all claims including alimony and maintenance; the marriage stood dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) Hindu Marriage Act vide decree dated 02.08.2025. Following Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that nothing remained to corroborate or prove the prosecution case, that continuation of the FIR would be an exercise in futility, and accordingly quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding the parties bound by the settlement terms.

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4666/2026

¶4

BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms. Upasana Bakshi and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advs. Mr. Sarabjot Singh and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advs. for R-2 SI- Deepak Sahu, PS: Punjabi Bagh

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶12

% 08.07.2026

¶13

CRL.M.A. 19455/2026 (Exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The present application is disposed of.

¶16

CRL.M.A. 19456/2026 (Delay of 39 days in re-filing)

¶17

By virtue of the present application, the petitioners seek condonation of delay of 39 days in re-filing the present petition.

¶18

For the reasons stated therein, the present application is allowed and the delay of 39 days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.

¶19

The present application is disposed of.

¶20

CRL.M.C. 4666/2026

¶21

By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 10/07/2026 at 11:25:32

¶24

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024 registered at PS.: Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and all proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of Memorandum of Understanding ( MoU ) dated 31.05.2025 ( Annexure P3 ), whereby the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 have mutually resolved their disputes.

¶25

Issue notice.

¶26

Learned APP accepts notice and submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶27

Respondent no.2, present in Court, also accepts notice and affirms the terms of the aforesaid MoU dated 31.05.2025. She submits that in compliance thereof, out of total settlement amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, the petitioner no.1 has already paid her the settlement amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and for the remaining sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, two Demand Drafts being DD No.592117 dated 07.07.2026 (Yes Bank) of Rs.3,50,000/- and DD No.592207 dated 04.05.2026 (Yes Bank) of Rs.1,50,000/- have been handed over to her today as 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, 1955 vide Decree dated 02.08.2025, and as such, she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶28

The petitioners and the respondent no.2, present in Court, as well as their credentials as on record, have been identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 10/07/2026 at 11:25:32

¶31

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 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.

¶32

Thus, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.304/2024 dated 13.05.2024 registered at PS.: Punjabi Bagh, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC as also all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶33

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

¶34

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶35

JULY 8, 2026/Ab

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 10/07/2026 at 11:25:32

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nityanand Upadhyay Vs Govt of NCT F Delhi

Shripad Agro Sales Private Limited & Ors. Vs Corteva Agriscience India Private Limited

Anurag Dalal Vs the State Though Station House Officer & Anr.

Shri Gaurav Singh Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Salauddin and Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Sahzor & Ors. Vs State NCT Ofdelhi & Anr.