Manish Lohat and Anr. v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/583/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC quashes FIR No. 572/2024 (26.08.2024) under Sections 498A/34 IPC, P.S. Raj Park, against complainant's former husband and mother-in-law, based on MoU dated 09.09.2024, mutual-consent divorce decree dated 24.03.2025 (S.13B HMA 1955) and completed full-and-final settlement; State gave no objection; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 relied on; petition under Article 226 Constitution read with S.528 BNSS 2023 disposed 18.02.2026 by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 572/2024 dated 26.08.2024 registered under sections 498A/34 IPC at P.S.: Raj Park, Delhi, with all proceedings arising therefrom closed; petition and pending applications disposed-of. ¶¶33

Manish Lohat and Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether case FIR No. 572/2024 dated 26.08.2024, registered under sections 498A/34 IPC at P.S.: Raj Park, Delhi against the former husband and mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent No. 2), should be quashed in view of the MoU dated 09.09.2024, the divorce by mutual consent and the completed full-and-final settlement, with no objection from the State.

¶¶18

Court's answer

In line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

In light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

FIR No. 572/2024 dated 26.08.2024 registered under sections 498-A/34 of IPC at P.S.: Raj Park, Delhi is quashed, and all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(CRL) 583/2026 (Decided 18.02.2026) — High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.): Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 BNSS 2023 by the former husband and mother-in-law of complainant/respondent No. 2 seeking quashing of FIR No. 572/2024 dated 26.08.2024 under sections 498A/34 IPC, P.S. Raj Park, Delhi. Premised on MoU dated 09.09.2024 and Divorce Decree dated 24.03.2025 (mutual-consent dissolution under sections 13B(1)/13B(2), Hindu Marriage Act 1955); no appeal from the decree; no child born of the wed-lock; respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of articles including gold and silver jewellery in full-and-final settlement and that all aspects of the settlement were performed; State raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held that continuing the FIR post-settlement would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony; FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed/closed. Petition and pending applications disposed-of.

¶1

$~203

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 583/2026

¶4

MANISH LOHAT AND ANR.

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sapna Sharma, Mr. Atma Ram Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. Petitioners in-person. versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Abhinav Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates. SI Ashish, P.S.: Raj Park. Ms. Archana Kumari and Mr. Prabhanjan Jha, Advocates for R-2. R-2 via video-conferencing.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶9

CRL.M.A. 5561/2026 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed-of.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 583/2026

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 583/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 28/02/2026 at 13:16:41

¶18

and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 572/2024 dated 26.08.2024 registered under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Raj Park, Delhi.

¶19

The petition is premised on Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.09.2024 (‘MoU’) arrived at between the parties; and Divorce Decree dated 24.03.2025, which is the culmination of petitions under sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, whereby the parties had sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

¶20

The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioners, as also of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

¶21

The petitioners are present in court; and respondent No.2 has joined via video-conferencing. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶22

The parties have confirmed that no child was born from the wed-lock.

¶23

¶24

No appeal is stated to have been filed from the divorce decree.

¶25

The court has queried respondent No. 2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that the MoU has been entered into between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims, she has received the articles including the gold and silver jewellery. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

¶26

Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶27

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &Anr. reported as (2012) 10

¶28

W.P.(CRL) 583/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 28/02/2026 at 13:16:41

¶32

SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶33

Accordingly, FIR No. 572/2024 dated 26.08.2024 registered under sections 498-A/34 of IPC at P.S.: Raj Park, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶34

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶36

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶37

FEBRUARY 18, 2026/ ak

¶38

W.P.(CRL) 583/2026

¶39

Page 3 of 3

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 28/02/2026 at 13:16:41

Manish Lohat and Anr. v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Lohat and Anr. v. the State 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

Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Amit Tyagi Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Durgesh Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Zubair & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Joginder Kumar Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shruti Kumari Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sattar @Zeeshan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Saddam & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Parveen Rana Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Directorate of Enforcement Vs Manoj Gaur

Mohit Pandey Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sonu @ Saad Ansari & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Sonu @ Saad Ansari & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.