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.

Sonu @ Rakesh Kumar and Ors vs State Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Sonu @ Rakesh Kumar and Ors vs State Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 10, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1257879

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./1618/2026
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sonu @ Rakesh Kumar and Ors

Advocate Mr. Mukesh Rajan, Mr. Vivek Kumar, Mr. Sambhav Shekhar, Mr. Raj Kumar

Respondent

State Nct of Delhi and Anr.

Excerpt

.....influence from any corner whatsoever and therefore, she would have ‘no objection’ if fir in question is quashed.10. petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 are present in person whereaspetitioner no. 2, who is, reportedly, an octogenarian, was to join the proceedings through videoconferencing but has not been able to join, due to technical glitches.11. in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing withcriminal 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. keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the fact that parties haveamicably settled their all disputes, continuing with criminal proceedingscrl.m.c. 2597/2026 2 would serve no useful purpose.13. accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this court undersection 528 of bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant fir.14. consequently, to secure the ends of justice fir no. 712/2020 datedproceedings arising therefrom, is quashed. original affidavits of the parties and settlement deed dated 07.07.2023 be submitted before the learned trial court within four weeks from today.15. the petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.16. the pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.(manoj jain)judgeapril 10, 2026/dr/sycrl.m.c. 2597/2026 3

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 10thApril, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 1618/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6572/2026 SONU @ RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Rajan, Mr. Vivek Kumar and Mr. Sambhav Shekhar, Advocates

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for State/R-1 with SI R.P. Meena, PS Palam Village Respondent No. 2 (Through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 712/2020 dated

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

2. The marriage between complainant (respondent No.2 herein) and

petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 10.06.2019, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. There is no child from the wedlock.

3. On account of matrimonial discord, a complaint was lodged by

respondent No.2, which resulted into registration of the abovesaid FIR.

4. Though charge-sheet has been filed but charges are yet to be framed.

5. Respondent No. 2 has joined the proceedings through

videoconferencing. She has been identified by the investigating officer who

CRL.M.C. 2597/2026 1 is present in Court.

6. Matter has been amicably settled and parties have been able to resolve

all their disputes. Copy of Settlement Deed dated 07.07.2023 has been placed on record.

7. When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates the terms of settlement as

mentioned in Settlement Deed dated 07.07.2023 and has agreed to take divorce by way of mutual consent without any kind of monetary consideration and she has waived off all her rights related to alimony, istridhan, maintenance for self (past, present and future).

8. Parties have already taken divorce by way of mutual consent vide

decree dated 05.09.2023.

9. Respondent No.2 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.

10. Petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 are present in person whereas

petitioner No. 2, who is, reportedly, an octogenarian, was to join the proceedings through videoconferencing but has not been able to join, due to technical glitches.

11. 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 petitioners.

12. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the fact that parties have

amicably settled their all disputes, continuing with criminal proceedings

CRL.M.C. 2597/2026 2 would serve no useful purpose.

13. 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.

14. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice FIR No. 712/2020 dated

proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed. Original affidavits of the parties and Settlement Deed dated 07.07.2023 be submitted before the learned Trial Court within four weeks from today.

15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

16. The pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

APRIL 10, 2026/dr/sy

CRL.M.C. 2597/2026 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial