Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

may 2026

Delhi High Court · 2026-05-13

VAIBHAV SAXENA AND ORS vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation / case number
CRL.M.C.-2426/2025 2026:DHC:4301
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
VAIBHAV SAXENA AND ORS
Respondent
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13th May, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2426/2025 VAIBHAV SAXENA AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State with SI Ajay Sharma. Ms. Deepika and Mr. Vikram Beniwal, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 (through V.C.). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 135/2018 dated 30.04.2018, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar Phase I, for commission of offences under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. The marriage between complainant (respondent No.2 herein) and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 22.04.2016, as per Hindu rites and customs. No child is born from the abovesaid wedlock. 3. However, on account of temperamental differences, the parties started residing separately and when a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2, it resulted into registration of the abovesaid FIR. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2426/2025 1 THAPLIYAL Signing Date:15.05.2026 10:39:41 4. Charge-sheet has already been filed. 5. With the intervention of common friends and relatives, parties have entered into a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19.12.2023 and have been able to resolve all their disputes and have decided to part ways, gracefully. 6. It is in the abovesaid backdrop that quashing is being sought. 7. Respondent no. 2 is present through video conferencing and she has been duly identified by her counsel as well as by Investigating Officer. 8. When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates the terms of abovesaid settlement. S

VAIBHAV SAXENA AND ORS vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR · Niyam