Petitioners sought quashing of a dowry/cruelty FIR after amicable settlement via MoU at Delhi Mediation Centre. The complainant confirmed voluntary settlement. The High Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, preserving the minor child's future rights.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~54
SH. YOGESH@RINKU & ANR. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate with petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC (Crl) for State with SI Parents Pannu, P.S. New Usmanpur.
Counsel (appearance not given) for R- 2 and R-2 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
O R D E R
% 13.02.2026
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 18/02/2026 at 13:02:27
concerned, Police Station, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
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 18/02/2026 at 13:02:27
future rights of he minor child shall not get affected as per the judgment titled as Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava: (2020) 20 SCC 787 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2026/vc/gj
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 18/02/2026 at 13:02:27
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar ShrivastavaRelied on¶7
(2020) 20 SCC 787 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sh. Yogesh@Rinku & Anr.
The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Respondent No. 2
Swarana Kanta Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
