$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 252/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2488/2026 CRL.M.A. 2489/2026 SH NAIIM & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shabahat Hussain, Mr. Tej Pratap, Advocates for petitioner No.1 to 6.

All petitioners in-person.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanajy Lao, Standing Counsel for the State.

SI Abhishek Singh, P.S. Wazirabad.

Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for R-

2 alongwith respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 13.02.2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners, who are the former husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 815/2024 dated 26.12.2024 registered under sections 406/34/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.:

Wazirabad, Delhi.

2. The petition is premised on Deed of Divorce by Mutual Consent (Mubarat) attested on 25.10.2025 that has been signed between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, whereby the parties are stated to have dissolved their marriage irrevocably by mutual consent under Muslim personal law.

3. The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioners, as also of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

4. The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

5. Neither of the parties has challenged the Mubarat in any manner.

6. The court has queried respondent No. 2, who confirms that she has taken divorce by mutual consent; and that a settlement has been entered into between the parties; and that in full-and-final settlement of all her claims including towards maintenance (past, present and future), meher/iddat, dowry articles, jewellery, permanent alimony, etc., she was to receive a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 /-from petitioner No. 1; which amount has already been paid, in compliance of the terms of the settlement. Respondent No. 2 confirms that all aspects of the settlement have now been performed.

7. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

8. In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

9. That being said however, in view of the observations made by a Division Bench of this court in judgment dated 07.11.2024 in MAT. APP.(F.C.) No. 37/2023, it is made clear that nothing in this order is to be construed as this court having given its imprimatur to the Mubarat signed between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.

10. Accordingly, FIR No. 815/2024 dated 26.12.2024 registered under sections 406/34/498-A of the IPC at P.S.: Wazirabad, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

11. Petition stands disposed-of.

12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 13, 2026 V.Rawat