Allowed¶10

Vipin Kumar Tripathi v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2026W.P.(CRL)/742/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(CRL) 742/2026, Delhi HC, 11.03.2026, Anup Jairam Bhambhani J — quashing of FIR No. 132/2025 dt. 22.03.2025 u/s 498A IPC, P.S. Hari Nagar, on settlement (Rs. 4,00,000/- full-and-final; Rs. 2,75,000/- earlier + Rs. 1,25,000/- in court) and mutual-consent divorce decree dt. 30.01.2026 u/Ss. 13B(1)-(2) HMA; Art. 226 + S. 528 BNSS 2023; relies on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; FIR and consequent proceedings quashed; petition disposed-of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 132/2025 dated 22.03.2025 registered under section 498A IPC at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi and closure of all proceedings arising therefrom; petition stands disposed-of, alongwith pending applications, if any. ¶10

Vipin Kumar Tripathi Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 132/2025 dated 22.03.2025, registered under section 498A IPC at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi, should be quashed in light of the Settlement Agreement dated 02.07.2025 between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and their divorce by mutual consent (Decree dated 30.01.2026).

¶1

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; consequently the court saw no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 132/2025 dated 22.03.2025, registered under section 498A IPC at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi, is quashed, and all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.), order dated 11.03.2026 in W.P.(CRL) 742/2026: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 528 BNSS 2023 by Vipin Kumar Tripathi, former husband of complainant/respondent No. 2 (Ms. Priyanka), sought quashing of FIR No. 132/2025 dated 22.03.2025 registered under section 498A IPC at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi. Petition premised on Settlement Agreement dated 02.07.2025 (Counselling Cell, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts) and Divorce Decree dated 30.01.2026 under sections 13B(1) and 13B(2), Hindu Marriage Act 1955; parties confirmed no child was born and no appeal was filed from the decree. Respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of Rs. 4,00,000/- in full-and-final settlement of all claims (maintenance past/present/future, stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony) — Rs. 2,75,000/- paid earlier and Rs. 1,25,000/- paid in court; State (through Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao) raised no objection to quashing. Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held that continuing the FIR would be futile and inimical to peace and harmony; the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed and the petition, with pending applications, disposed-of.

¶1

$~68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 742/2026 VIPIN KUMAR TRIPATHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Surendra, Ms. Anchal Dubey, Ms. M. Tyagi, Mr. Amit Tyagi, Ms. Raksha Sharma and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates. Petitioner in-person.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Abhinav Kumar and Mr. Anjan Sachdeva, Advocates for the State. SI Tej Dutt, P.S.: Hari Nagar. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for R- 2. R-2 in-person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 11.03.2026

¶7

W.P.(CRL) 742/2026

¶8

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 petitioner, who is the former husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seeks quashing of case FIR No. 132/2025 dated 22.03.2025 registered under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi.

¶9

The petition is premised on a Settlement Agreement dated 02.07.2025 arrived at before the Counselling Cell, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi; and Divorce Decree dated 30.01.2026 ,

¶10

W.P.(CRL) 742/2026

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 19/03/2026 at 13:51:36

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

The court has queried Ms. Priyanka, respondent No. 2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that a settlement agreement has been entered into between the parties; and that in fulland-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. 4,00,000/from the petitioner; out of which Rs. 2,75,000/- was paid earlier and Rs. 1,25,000/- has been paid in court today, in compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(CRL) 742/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶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 19/03/2026 at 13:51:36

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, FIR No. 132/2025 dated 22.03.2025 registered under section 498A IPC at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶28

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶29

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

¶30

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶31

MARCH 11, 2026/ ak

¶32

W.P.(CRL) 742/2026

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

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 19/03/2026 at 13:51:36

Vipin Kumar Tripathi v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Tripathi v. 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

Sh. Avinder Singh Puri Vs State & Anr.

Samuel Akujuobi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mohd Sallam Nawab Vs State of NCT of New Delhi

Md. Asraf & Ors. Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Yogesh Aggarwal Vs the State Gnctd & Anr.

Sanjay Singh Rathi Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sh Sai Prashant Reddy Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shiwangi Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Md. Asraf & Ors. Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs the State & Anr.

Tarun Kumar Malik Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Jaipal Singh & Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Ravinder & Ors. Vs State & Ors.