Mukesh Sharma vs State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1265363

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/1265363
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decided On: May 29, 2026
Case Number: CRL.M.C./4064/2026
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

Mukesh Sharma

Advocate Ms. Tejaswini Verma, Mr. Abhay Singh

Respondent

State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

Advocate Mr. Raghuinder Verma, Ms. Nikita Manish, Ms. Upasna Bakshi

Excerpt

.....respondent no.2, which is accompanied by their respective proofs of identity.3. issue notice. learned app for the state accepts notice and submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid fir.4. respondent no.2, present in court, also accepts notice and affirms the terms of the aforesaid mediation settlement, and as such, he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid fir as he wishes to continue living peacefully.5. the petitioner and the respondent no.2, present in court, as well as their credentials, as on record, have been identified by the io.6. facts disclose that a settlement has already been arrived voluntarilybetween the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and the present petition is accompanied by their respective affidavit(s) qua the said effect. in view thereof, they shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves. as such, 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.7. accordingly, the present petition is allowed and fir no.285/2016 dated 18.03.2016 registered at ps: shahbad dairy, delhi under sections quashed.8. as such, the present petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of in the aforesaid term. saurabh banerjee, j may 29, 2026/ab

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4064/2026, CRL.M.A. 16476/2026 MUKESH SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tejaswini Verma and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advs. Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State with Ms. Nikita Manish and Ms. Upasna Bakshi, Advs. SI- Divya Mann, PS: Shahbad Dairy. R2 in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

ORDER

% 29.05.2026

1. The present matter is being taken up today as 28.05.2026 was declared a holiday.

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

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.285/2016 dated 18.03.2016 registered at PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi under Sections 326/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and all proceedings emanating therefrom in view of the Mediation Settlement dated 07.04.2026 [Annexure P5] arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, which is accompanied by their respective proofs of identity.

3. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice and submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

4. Respondent no.2, present in Court, also accepts notice and affirms the terms of the aforesaid Mediation Settlement, and as such, he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR as he wishes to continue living peacefully.

5. The petitioner and the respondent no.2, present in Court, as well as their credentials, as on record, have been identified by the IO.

6. Facts disclose that a settlement has already been arrived voluntarily

between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and the present petition is accompanied by their respective affidavit(s) qua the said effect. In view thereof, they shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves. As such, 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.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.285/2016 dated 18.03.2016 registered at PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi under Sections quashed.

8. As such, the present petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of in the aforesaid term. SAURABH BANERJEE, J MAY 29, 2026/Ab

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Mukesh Sharma vs State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Anr. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee