Amit Kumar and Ors vs the State Nct of Delhi and Anr

Amit Kumar and Ors vs The State Nct of Delhi and Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 30, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1260393

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1260393
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
Decided On: Mar 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL.M.C./2336/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amit Kumar and Ors

Advocate Mr. Yogesh Bansal, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ms. Anoushka Sharma, Mr. Ravinder Kumar

Respondent

The State Nct of Delhi and Anr

Excerpt

.....fir.4. chargesheet has already been filed, though, charges are yet to beframed. in such chargesheet, offences under sections 313, 377 and 506 of ipc alongwith offence under section 4 of dowry prohibition act, 1961, have also been added.5. fact, however, remains that the parties have been able to amicablyresolve the matter under the aegis of delhi mediation centre, karkardooma courts, delhi. terms of settlement are recorded in mediation order dated 05.03.2025. as per settlement, parties have already obtained divorce by way of mutual consent on 19.01.2026.6. petitioners are present in court.7. respondent no.2 is also present alongwith her counsel. theinvestigating officer (i.o.) is present and duly identifies respondent no.2.8. during course of arguments, when asked, respondent no.2 reiteratedthe terms of settlement and stated that she has agreed to accept a sum of rs. 5.5 lakhs as full and final settlement in lieu of alimony, istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future). a sum of rs. 4 lakhs has already been received by her and the last installment of rs. 1.5 lakhs has been received by her today, by way of demand draft drawn on hdfc bank. 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. her affidavit to abovesaid effect have also been placed on record.9. respondent no. 2 submits that, though, there were allegations againstthe petitioners for commission under section 377 and 313 ipc also, but, the fir was registered, primarily, because there were temperamental differences.signed by:sonia crl.m.c. 2336/2026 2she also submits that she also wants to move on with her life and wants to settle and, therefore, she does not want the present fir to remain alive, anymore.10. as already noticed above, the charges are yet to be framed.11. in narinder singh & ors......

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 30th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2336/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9504/2026

AMIT KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Yogesh Bansal with Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Anoushka Sharma & Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocates for respondent no. 2 S.I. Satyadev Kumar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 237/2022 dated

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

2. Marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 was solemnised

on 25.04.2021 at Delhi in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. There is no child from such wedlock.

3. However, on account of temperamental differences, the parties started

residing separately and when a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2, it

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2336/2026 1

resulted into registration of the abovesaid FIR.

4. Chargesheet has already been filed, though, charges are yet to be

framed. In such chargesheet, offences under Sections 313, 377 and 506 of IPC alongwith offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have also been added.

5. Fact, however, remains that the parties have been able to amicably

resolve the matter under the aegis of Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Terms of settlement are recorded in Mediation order dated 05.03.2025. As per settlement, parties have already obtained divorce by way of mutual consent on 19.01.2026.

6. Petitioners are present in court.

7. Respondent No.2 is also present alongwith her counsel. The

Investigating Officer (I.O.) is present and duly identifies respondent No.2.

8. During course of arguments, when asked, Respondent No.2 reiterated

the terms of settlement and stated that she has agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs as full and final settlement in lieu of alimony, istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future). A sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has already been received by her and the last installment of Rs. 1.5 lakhs has been received by her today, by way of demand draft drawn on HDFC Bank. 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. Her affidavit to abovesaid effect have also been placed on record.

9. Respondent no. 2 submits that, though, there were allegations against

the petitioners for commission under section 377 and 313 IPC also, but, the FIR was registered, primarily, because there were temperamental differences.

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2336/2026 2

She also submits that she also wants to move on with her life and wants to settle and, therefore, she does not want the present FIR to remain alive, anymore.

10. As already noticed above, the charges are yet to be framed.

11. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC

466, the Apex Court observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak. Reference be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

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

have settled their all disputes amicably and respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue her complaint against petitioners herein, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, the dispute does not involve any public interest and is private in nature.

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. 237/2022 dated

proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed.

15. Original affidavits of the parties, copies of which have been placed on

record in the present proceedings, shall be handed over the concerned SHO/IO within two weeks.

Signed By:SONIA           CRL.M.C. 2336/2026                                                          3
                          16.   The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
                          17.   Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

MARCH 30, 2026/ar/pb

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2336/2026 4

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Amit Kumar and Ors vs The State Nct of Delhi and Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain