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.

Harish Kumar & Ors. vs the State (Nct of Delhi) Through S.H.O P.S. Ranhola & Anr.

Harish Kumar & Ors. vs The State (Nct of Delhi) Through S.H.O P.S. Ranhola & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 20, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1259392

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./2086/2026
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harish Kumar & Ors.

Advocate Ms. Monika Sharma, Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Singh

Respondent

The State (Nct of Delhi) Through S.H.O P.S. Ranhola & Anr.

Excerpt

.....only] and dd no.006913 dated 11.03.2026 of rs.3,00,000/- [rupees three lakhs only] respectively have been handed over to her as full and final settlement of all her present, past and future claims. she further submits that her marriage with the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved by decree of divorce dated 20.02.2026 under section 13b(2) of the hindu marriage act, 1995, and she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid fir.4. the petitioners and the respondent no.2, present in court, as well astheir credentials, as on record, have been identified by the io.5. facts disclose that the parties have voluntarily arrived at asettlement, and thus have filed their respective affidavit(s) along with the present petition. as such, the parties shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves. thus, following the law laid down by the hon’ble supreme court in jitendra raghuvanshi & ors. vs. babita raguvanshi & anr. (2013) 4 scc 58, gian singh vs. state of punjab & anr. (2012) 10 scc 303 and narinder singh & ors. vs. state of punjab & anr. (2014) 6 scc 466, since there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the aforesaid fir against the petitioner will be an exercise in futility.6. resultantly, the present petition is allowed and fir no. 264/2022registered at ps.: ranhola under sections 498a/406/506/34 of the ipc and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.7. accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaidterms.saurabh banerjee, jmarch 20, 2026/ab

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2086/2026 HARISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Monika Sharma, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH S.H.O P.S.

RANHOLA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Ajay Kumar and Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advs. SI- Jagmohan, PS: Vijay Vihar SI- Udit, PS: Ranhola

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

ORDER

% 20.03.2026

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 264/2022 dated 09.02.2022 registered at PS.: Ranhola under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and all proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of the Settlement Deed dated 09.10.2025 [Annexure P/6] arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, which is accompanied by their respective proofs of identities.

2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice, and submits,

that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

3. Respondent no.2, present in Court, also accepts notice and affirms

the terms of the aforesaid Settlement Deed, and submits that out of the total settlement amount of Rs.19,00,000/- [Rupees nineteen Lakhs Only], the petitioner no.1 has already paid her an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and two Demand Drafts bearing DD No.015940 dated (not clear) (Axis Bank) of Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Only] and DD No.006913 dated 11.03.2026 of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Only] respectively have been handed over to her as full and final settlement of all her present, past and future claims. She further submits that her marriage with the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved by Decree of Divorce dated 20.02.2026 under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, and she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

4. The petitioners and the respondent no.2, present in Court, as well as

their credentials, as on record, have been identified by the IO.

5. Facts disclose that the parties have voluntarily arrived at a

settlement, and thus have filed their respective affidavit(s) along with the present petition. As such, the parties shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves. Thus, following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raguvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, since there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner will be an exercise in futility.

6. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 264/2022

registered at PS.: Ranhola under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

MARCH 20, 2026/Ab

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial