Quashed¶10

Rocky Goyal @ Rocky & Ors. v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR

Delhi HC6 Jan 2026CRL.M.C./72/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 72/2026; Delhi High Court; Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 06.01.2026; quashing of FIR on settlement; FIR No. 0670/2022 PS Vijay Vihar Rohini; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; Section 354 IPC chargesheet 06.03.2023; Section 528 BNSS 2023; mutual consent divorce Sections 13B(1)/(2) Hindu Marriage Act; settlement dated 31.01.2025; divorce judgment 12.11.2025; Rs. 3,20,000/- full-and-final settlement; stridhan; permanent alimony; State no objection APP Richa Dhawan; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Rocky Goyal @ Rocky.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed/closed; petition disposed-of; pending applications, if any, disposed-of. ¶10

Rocky Goyal @ Rocky & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed/closed; petition disposed-of; pending applications, if any, disposed-of.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC (with section 354 IPC added by chargesheet) at P.S. Vijay Vihar, Rohini, and all proceedings emanating therefrom ought to be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties and the divorce by mutual consent.

¶9

Court's answer

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; accordingly, in line with the law laid down in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the FIR and proceedings were liable to be quashed.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S.: Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi is quashed and all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed.

¶10

Key takeaways

The court recorded respondent No. 2's confirmation that she took divorce by mutual consent and received Rs. 3,20,000/- from petitioner No. 1 in full-and-final settlement of all her claims (maintenance past, present and future, stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony), with Rs. 2,20,000/- paid earlier and Rs. 1,00,000/- paid in court, all aspects of the settlement having been performed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – S. 528 BNSS 2023 – Matrimonial dispute – FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 under SS. 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Vijay Vihar, Rohini; offence u/S. 354 IPC added vide chargesheet dated 06.03.2023 – Petition by former husband and in-laws premised on MoU/Settlement dated 31.05.2025 replaced: settlement dated 31.01.2025 and judgment of divorce dated 12.11.2025 under SS. 13B(1)/(2) Hindu Marriage Act 1955; no appeal from divorce decree – Complainant/R-2 present and confirms full-and-final settlement of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rs. 2,20,000/- earlier; Rs. 1,00,000/- paid in court) covering maintenance, stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery and permanent alimony; all settlement terms performed; no child born of wed-lock – Learned APP for State confirms no objection to quashing – Following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, continuance would be futile and not conducive to peace and harmony – FIR and all proceedings therefrom quashed/closed; petition and pending applications disposed of (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; 06.01.2026).

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 72/2026

¶4

ROCKY GOYAL @ ROCKY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shekhar Mehla and Mr. Rahul Rai, Advocates alongwith petitioners (in-person).

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State. SI Udeshya Rathi, P.S.: Vijay Vihar. Mr. Rajbir Malik, Mr. Sandeep, Mr. Praveen Bhati and Mr. Kadam Khorbi, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 (in-person).

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶9

O R D E R % 06.01.2026

¶10

CRL.M.C. 72/2026

¶11

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

CRL.M.C. 72/2026

¶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 12/01/2026 at 11:49:17

¶16

investigation, offence under section 354 IPC was added vide chargesheet dated 06.03.2023.

¶17

The petition is premised on Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement dated 31.01.2025 and Judgment of Divorce dated 12.11.2025, 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.

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are present in court. Petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have joined via video-conferencing. Respondent No. 2 is also present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶20

The parties have confirmed that no child was born from the wed-lock . 6. No appeal is stated to have been filed from the judgment of divorce decree.

¶21

The court has interacted with respondent No. 2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that a settlement has been entered into between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims including towards maintenance (past, present and future), stridhan , dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony, etc., she was to receive a sum of Rs. 3,20,000 /- from petitioner No. 1; out of which Rs. 2,20,000 /- was paid earlier and Rs. 1,00,000 /- has been paid in court today, in compliance of the terms of the settlement deed. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

CRL.M.C. 72/2026

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 12/01/2026 at 11:49:17

¶26

Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP 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 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.

¶28

Accordingly, FIR No. 0670/2022 dated 07.09.2022 registered under sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S.: Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶29

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶30

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

¶31

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

JANUARY 6, 2026

Page 3 of 3

CRL.M.C. 72/2026

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 12/01/2026 at 11:49:17

Rocky Goyal @ Rocky & Ors. v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rocky Goyal @ Rocky & Ors. v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & 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

Nikhil Agarwal Vs Priya Agarwal

Om Pal Singh Tomar Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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

Ankit Goel Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajender @ Kallu Vs State Gnct of Delhi

H N Corporates Private Limited Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.