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.

Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs State ( Gnct of Delhi) Through S.H.O, & Anr.

Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs State ( Gnct of Delhi) Through S.H.O, & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 30, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1256377

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./1197/2026
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Advocate Mr. Girish Bhardwaj, Mr. Amit Sheoran, Mr. Raj Kumar, Shri. Krishan, Mr. Gagandeep Kulyana, Ms. Manisha Saharan, Mr. Abhishek Sharma

Respondent

State ( Gnct of Delhi) Through S.H.O, & Anr.

Excerpt

.....of some matrimonial discord and temperamentalsigned by:sonia crl.m.c. 1197/2026 1differences, respondent no. 2 reported the matter to the police which resulted in registration of aforesaid fir.4. charge-sheet has already been filed.5. fact, however, remains that parties have been able to settle all theirmatrimonial disputes and have entered into memorandum of understanding on 07.01.2025.6. it is in the abovesaid backdrop that quashing is being sought.7. petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 are present in person. petitionerno.2 is not present as she is indisposed.8. respondent no. 2 is present in person and she has been duly identifiedby her counsel as well as by investigating officer.9. when the present matter was taken up by this court on 12.02.2026,respondent no.2 had appeared and submitted that she had relinquished all her claims towards istridhan, alimony, jewellery, maintenance (past, present and future). however, since by that time the parties had not taken divorce by mutual consent, the matter was deferred. it has now been informed that the parties have taken divorce by mutual consent and decree has been passed by learned additional principal judge, family court, rewari on 09.04.2026.10. a copy of such decree has also been shown and the same is directed tobe taken on record.11. when asked, respondent no. 2 reiterates the terms of abovesaidsettlement. she submits that she has relinquished all her claims towards istridhan, alimony, jewellery, maintenance (past, present and future). she states that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever and therefore, she would have ‘no objection’ if fir in question is quashed.signed by:sonia crl.m.c. 1197/2026 212. as per settlement terms, custody of their daughter would remain withfather i.e. petitioner no.3.13. petitioner no.3 submits that he would have no objection if respondentno.2 wants to.....

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 30th April, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 1197/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4792/2026

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Girish Bhardwaj with Mr. Amit Sheoran, Advocates with petitioner Nos.1 and 3 in person.

versus

STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) THROUGH S.H.O. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State with ASI Shri Krishan, CAW Cell Dwarka, SI Krishna, PS Dwarka. Mr. Gagandeep Kulyana, Ms. Manisha Saharan and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 314/2021 dated

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Marriage between petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 was

solemnized on 13.12.2017, as per Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a baby girl, who is presently with the father i.e. petitioner No.3 herein.

3. However, on account of some matrimonial discord and temperamental

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1197/2026 1

differences, respondent No. 2 reported the matter to the police which resulted in registration of aforesaid FIR.

4. Charge-sheet has already been filed.

5. Fact, however, remains that parties have been able to settle all their

matrimonial disputes and have entered into Memorandum of Understanding on 07.01.2025.

6. It is in the abovesaid backdrop that quashing is being sought.

7. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 are present in person. Petitioner

No.2 is not present as she is indisposed.

8. Respondent no. 2 is present in person and she has been duly identified

by her counsel as well as by Investigating Officer.

9. When the present matter was taken up by this Court on 12.02.2026,

respondent No.2 had appeared and submitted that she had relinquished all her claims towards istridhan, alimony, jewellery, maintenance (past, present and future). However, since by that time the parties had not taken divorce by mutual consent, the matter was deferred. It has now been informed that the parties have taken divorce by mutual consent and decree has been passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari on 09.04.2026.

10. A copy of such decree has also been shown and the same is directed to

be taken on record.

11. When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates the terms of abovesaid

settlement. She submits that she has relinquished all her claims towards istridhan, alimony, jewellery, maintenance (past, present and future). She states that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever and therefore, she would have ‘no objection’ if FIR in question is quashed.

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1197/2026 2

12. As per settlement terms, custody of their daughter would remain with

father i.e. petitioner No.3.

13. Petitioner No.3 submits that he would have no objection if respondent

No.2 wants to meet her daughter, as per mutual convenience.

14. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, 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 petitioner.

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

Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

16. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 314/2021 dated

proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed.

17. Original Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 07.01.2025 as

well as original affidavits of the parties shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court within four weeks.

18. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

19. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

APRIL 30, 2026/st/js

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1197/2026 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial