Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anil Kumar and Ors vs State of Nct of Delhi & Anr.

Anil Kumar and Ors vs State of Nct of Delhi & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 10, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1256176

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL.M.C./1134/2026
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar and Ors

Advocate Mr. R.V. Singh

Respondent

State of Nct of Delhi & Anr.

Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, Mr. Z.A. Ansari

Excerpt

.....the offences has been granted and all the accused in the cross-fir have already been acquitted.9. the terms of mou/settlement have been reiterated by all the threeinjured persons.signed by:sonia crl.m.c. 1134/2026 210. respondent no.2 - deepak kumar and other two injured i.e. mr. ajayand ms. sangeeta are present in person and have been identified by his counsel, as well as investigating officer, who is present in court. they also reiterate the terms of settlement and have no objection if the fir in question is quashed.11. though, ideally, mr. ajay and ms. sangeeta, should have also beenmade respondents in the present matter, keeping in mind the overall facts, and also appreciating the fact that the matter with respect to cross-fir has already been compounded, and in view of the statements made by all the three injured persons today, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when dispute does not involve any public interest and is, primarily, private in nature. in any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.12. accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this court undersection 528 of the bnss, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant fir.13. consequently, to secure the ends of justice, fir no. 320/2022 datedsections 324/323/341/34 ipc, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.14. the petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.(manoj jain)judgefebruary 10, 2026/st/pbsigned by:sonia crl.m.c. 1134/2026 3

Full Judgment

$~62

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10th February, 2026

+ CRL.M.C. 1134/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4471/2026

ANIL KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. R.V. Singh, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with ASI Pradeep Kumar, PS Hauz Khas. Mr. Z.A. Ansari, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 320/2022 dated

Sections 324/323/341/34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Charge-sheet has already been filed for commission of offences under

Section 323/324/341/201/34 IPC. Charges are yet to be framed.

3. In the abovesaid FIR, there are three accused persons i.e. Mr. Anil

Kumar, Mr. Manoj Solanki and Mr. Shivbir @ Ramu.

4. In the present petition, only one injured has been made party, whereas,

as per the averments appearing in charge-sheet, the injuries were received by

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1134/2026 1

three persons i.e. Mr. Deepak Kumar (respondent no. 2), Mr. Ajay and Ms. Sangeeta (wife of Ajay).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was some dispute

between the neighbours and, with respect to the incident in question, a cross-FIR No.325/2022 at PS Tigri for commission of offences under Sections 323/341/34 IPC was also registered. In the cross-case, the injured was Mr. Anil Kumar and the accused are Mr. Deepak, Mr. Ajay, Ms. Sangeeta and Mr. Sunil.

6. Both the abovesaid cases were referred for mediation by the concerned

Magisterial Court and, fortunately, both the sides were able to settle all their disputes. The settlement has taken place under the aegis of Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 19.12.2024 and, as per the terms of settlement, the respective complainants in both the aforesaid matters have agreed to compound the matter and they have also assured that they would give requisite assistance for the purposes of quashing of the FIR, in case the offences were non-compoundable.

7. The aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is signed by all

three injured in the present matter i.e. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Mr. Ajay and his wife Sangeeta.

8. It is apprised that, in view of the aforesaid settlement, the cross-case

has already been compounded. I have seen order dated 11.08.2025, passed by learned JMFC-04, South, Saket, whereby on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the permission to compound the offences has been granted and all the accused in the cross-FIR have already been acquitted.

9. The terms of MoU/settlement have been reiterated by all the three

injured persons.

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1134/2026 2

10. Respondent No.2 - Deepak Kumar and other two injured i.e. Mr. Ajay

and Ms. Sangeeta are present in person and have been identified by his counsel, as well as Investigating Officer, who is present in Court. They also reiterate the terms of settlement and have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

11. Though, ideally, Mr. Ajay and Ms. Sangeeta, should have also been

made respondents in the present matter, keeping in mind the overall facts, and also appreciating the fact that the matter with respect to cross-FIR has already been compounded, and in view of the statements made by all the three injured persons today, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when dispute does not involve any public interest and is, primarily, private in nature. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.

12. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under

Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

13. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 320/2022 dated

Sections 324/323/341/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.

14. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

FEBRUARY 10, 2026/st/pb

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1134/2026 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial