Allowed¶19

Ritu Meena v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jul 2026CRL.M.C./4729/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on mutual settlement: S. 528 BNSS, 2023 petition allowed; FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013 (PS.: Vasant Kunj North, Delhi; Ss. 323/451 IPC) and all consequential proceedings quashed following Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; parties affirmed Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2026 in Court with affidavits; no objection by State APP and respondent nos.2 and 3; single-judge order by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, decided 10.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013 registered at PS.: Vasant Kunj North, Delhi under Sections 323/451 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition along with pending application disposed of. ¶19

Ritu Meena Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013 registered at PS.: Vasant Kunj North, Delhi under Sections 323/451 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, should be quashed in view of the mutual settlement (Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2026) between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶11

Court's answer

On the basis of the mutual settlement between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3, accompanied by their respective affidavits, and following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the present is a fit case for quashing the FIR.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the FIR would be an exercise in futility.

¶18

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013 registered at PS.: Vasant Kunj North, Delhi under Sections 323/451 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed; the petition along with the pending application is disposed of in those terms.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J.), order dated 10.07.2026 in CRL.M.C. 4729/2026 with CRL.M.A. 19849/2026: Petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 by Ritu Meena seeking quashing of FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013, PS.: Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, under Sections 323/451 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that she and respondent nos.2 and 3 had mutually settled all disputes vide Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2026. Learned APP for the State had no objection to quashing; learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 likewise raised no objection. The parties, present in Court and identified by the IO, affirmed the settlement terms, supported by their respective affidavits. Following the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, and noting that nothing remained to corroborate and prove the prosecution case so that continuance would be an exercise in futility, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, and disposed of the petition along with the pending application.

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4729/2026, CRL.M.A. 19849/2026

¶4

RITU MEENA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran Alam, Mr. Rahul Kumar Jain, Advocates with petitioner in person

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms. Upasna Bakshi and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates with SI Yashpal, PS: VK North Mr. Chinmay Kanojia, Advocate with R-2 and R-3 in person

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶10

O R D E R % 10.07.2026

¶11

By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013 registered at PS.: Vasant Kunj, North, Delhi under Sections 323/451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and the all proceedings emanating therefrom as the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3 have mutually settled all their disputes vide Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2026.

¶12

Issue notice.

¶13

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

¶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 14/07/2026 at 11:14:51

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 also accepts notice and submits that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have no objection if the present petition is allowed.

¶17

This Court has further had the occasion of interacting with the petitioner as well as the respondent nos.2 and 3, who all are present in Court. They affirm the terms of the aforesaid Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2026, wherein the parties have agreed to put a quietus to their disputes. Respondent nos.2 and 3 hence submit that they do not wish to continue the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3, present in Court, as well as their credentials, as on record, have been duly identified by the IO. 7. As noted above, a settlement based on mutual terms between the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3 is the basis of filing the present petition, which is accompanied by their respective affidavit(s) qua the said effect. In view thereof, the present is a fit case for quashing the aforesaid FIR. Accordingly, as also 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 , and also since there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the present FIR will be an exercise in futility.

¶19

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.466/2013 dated 02.11.2013 registered at PS.: Vasant Kunj, North, Delhi under Sections 323/451 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶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 14/07/2026 at 11:14:51

¶22

As such, the present petition alongwith the pending application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶24

JULY 10, 2026/So

¶25

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 14/07/2026 at 11:14:51

Ritu Meena v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritu Meena v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

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

Anusheel Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Gnctd & Anr.

Kala Vs State NCT of Delhi

Bintu@Mintu@Bittu Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Rahul Pandey Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Prakash Chand Jalan Vs Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (the Cdsco) & Anr.

Dharmendra & Ors. Vs State (Gnctd) & Anr.