VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2026 › High Court of Delhi

Atul Kumar and Others v. The State of NCT Delhi and Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
18 August 2026
Bench
Saurabh Banerjeeauthor
Case no.
W.P.(CRL) 2466/2026

Follow Delhi High CourtFollow Saurabh Banerjee

Judgment

O R D E R %

18.08.2026

¶1Original Mutual Settlement dated 07.08.2026, handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is taken on record.

¶2By virtue of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.347/2020 dated 22.06.2020 registered at PS.: Gokulpuri, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) and all proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of Mutual Settlement dated

07.08.2026, whereby the petitioners and the respondent no.2 have mutually resolved their disputes.

¶3Issue notice.

¶4Learned ASC accepts notice and submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also accepts notice and submits that the respondent no.2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

¶6Respondent no.2, present in Court, also accepts notice and affirms the terms of the aforesaid Mutual Settlement dated 07.08.2026 and submits that she has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶7The petitioners and the respondent no.2, present in Court, as well as their credentials as on record, have been identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶8This Court has further had the occasion of interacting with the petitioners as well as the respondent no.2, who all are present in Court. They affirm the terms of the aforesaid Mutual Settlement dated

07.08.2026, and submit that they have amicably resolved all their disputes and are now living together happily with their child. As such, the parties have agreed to put a quietus to their disputes. Respondent no.2 hence submits that he does not wish to continue with the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners.

¶9Facts disclose that the parties have expressed their clear intention as also taken steps towards resuming their matrimonial life, as they are now The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. residing together alongwith their child in peace and harmony. 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 will be an exercise in futility.

¶10Therefore, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.347/2020 dated 22.06.2020 registered at PS.: Gokulpuri, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/323/506/509/34 of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act as also all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶11Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J AUGUST 18, 2026/bh The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010378592026 + W.P.(CRL) 2466/2026 ATUL KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Abhishek Gaur, Advs. with petitioners in person versus THE STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for the State with SI Arvind Verma, SI Sneh Mr. Pawan Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Gaur, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 present in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.