Abhishek Kumar And Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 13 October, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010413492026
+ W.P.(CRL) 2686/2026, CRL.M.A. 27174/2026
ABHISHEK KUMAR AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Ms. Shisba
Chawla and Mr. Waqir Ahmed, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP, Mr.
Abhinav Kumar, Adv. and Mr. Aryan
Sachdeva, Adv.
W/SI Neha, PS VK South
Mr. A.K. Pathak, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”) read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking
quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 0389/2023
th
dated 18 July, 2023, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Vasant Kunj South,
South West District, Delhi, under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and all consequential proceedings emanating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 1 of 7

therefrom, on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. Issue Notice.
3. Notice is accepted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(“APP”) for the State as well as by the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 2.
4. The parties, i.e., the petitioners as well as respondent no. 2 are present
before this Court, and are duly identified by their respective counsels as well
as by the Investigating Officer (“IO”), who is also present before this Court.
5. The captioned petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the
parties.
6. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the captioned petition, culled
out from the documents on record, are as follows:
6.1 The marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2
nd
was solemnized on 22 November, 2015 and a minor daughter, namely,
rd
Abhiruchi Shree, has been born out of the said wedlock, on 03 September,
2017. However, owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental
th
differences, the parties have been living separately from 16 January, 2023.
th
6.2 The FIR in question came to be lodged on 18 July, 2023, pursuant to
the written complaint by respondent no. 2, i.e., the complainant, to the
Crime against Women Cell (“CAW”) Delhi Cantt., Delhi, alleging that
petitioner no.1 along with other petitioners here had harassed her mentally
and physically qua unlawful dowry-related demands and her stridhan and
other belongings had been retained by them. She alleges that the she was
discriminated against and subjected to cruelty on account of the birth of a
th
female child. She further alleges that, on 15 January, 2023, her minor
daughter, had been forcibly taken away from her, thereby depriving her of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 2 of 7

the child’s custody and access.
6.3 During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner no.1 and
respondent no. 2 amicably resolved all their disputes vide Mediation
th
Settlement Agreement dated 27 February, 2026, arrived at between the
parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow, UP.
6.4 By way of the said Mediation Settlement Agreement, petitioner no. 1
and respondent no. 2 agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of divorce by
mutual consent. Respondent no. 2 further agreed not to claim any
maintenance or alimony either for herself or minor daughter. Petitioner no.
1, in turn, agreed to hand over the custody of the minor daughter to
respondent no. 2 while retaining the visitation rights.
6.5 Vide the said Mediation Settlement Agreement the parties agreed to
cooperate with each other in quashing of the present FIR in question, as well
as other FIRs and complaint cases filed by either party against each other.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as respondent
no. 2 jointly submit that the parties have executed the Mediation Settlement
th
Agreement dated 27 February, 2026, and therefore, pray that the FIR in the
question be quashed.
8. This Court on the last date of hearing had noted that there was no
provision for the minor daughter in the Mediation Settlement Agreement.
Thus, this Court had directed the petitioner no. 1, i.e., the father to think
about the welfare of his minor daughter.
9. Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has handed over
to this Court the investments which have been done by petitioner no. 1 in the
name of the minor daughter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 3 of 7

10. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has invested a sum or Rs.
40,31,039/- in various Life Insurance Corporation of India (“LIC”) Policies,
each having different maturity dates.
11. It is submitted that the minor daughter is the beneficiary of the
aforesaid total investments which shall be given to her on the respective
dates of maturity. The details of the LIC investments in favour of the minor
daughter, as handed over to this Court, is reproduced as under:
“

”
12. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount of the money shall not be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 4 of 7

changed and that the minor daughter shall continue to remain beneficiary of
the aforesaid policies.
13. Needless to state, the petitioner no. 1 shall continue to pay the
premiums of the LIC policies till their maturity.
14. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 2, who submits that in
view of the fact that the petitioner no. 1 has already made provision for their
minor daughter, she has no objection if the present petition is allowed and
she does not wish to pursue the matter any further.
15. However, she submits that she may be given copy of the documents
pertaining to the LIC Policies in favour of the minor daughter.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions from
petitioner no. 1, who is present before this Court, submits that requisite
documents shall be handed over to respondent no. 2.
17. This Court is informed that marriage between petitioner no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 already stands dissolved, as they have obtained a decree of
th
divorce by mutual consent, dated 14 May, 2026, granted by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in HMA 485/2026 .
18. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the FIR in
question.
19. Learned Senior Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State submits that
the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and
considering the fact that the parties have already arrived at settlement, this
Court finds no impediment in allowing the present petition.
21. It is no longer res-integra that this Court has the power to quash the
criminal proceedings in cases of non-compoundable offences under the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 5 of 7

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”), i.e., now the BNSS,
wherein, the parties have settled the matter between themselves.
22. The Supreme Court has held that under Section 482 of the
CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS, High Courts may quash criminal
proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, if the
concerned parties have arrived at a compromise or settlement, and
particularly when no overarching public interest is adversely affected by
quashing the same.
23. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi
and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , the Supreme Court has held that the High
Courts are empowered to quash an FIR in case of matrimonial disputes in
order to foster genuine settlements, even when the offences involved are
non-compoundable in nature. The relevant portion of the said judgment
reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4
SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , this Court has upheld the
powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal
proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a
compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing
to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the
said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the
High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by
accepting the settlement arrived at.
15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,
when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the
offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial
disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled
the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for
the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 6 of 7

would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR,
complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, it is
th
directed that FIR No. 0389/2023 dated 18 July, 2023, registered at PS
Vasant Kunj South, South West District, Delhi, under Sections 406/498A/34
of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom,
are hereby quashed.
25. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
26. Pending application also stands disposed of.



MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026/KR




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 7 of 7