Delhi High Court

103,150 judgments

Year:

Him Tyagi and Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr

05 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1018

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute compromise

Satinder Kaur v. Girish Chander Verma

05 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1017

The Delhi High Court held that the deposit condition under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for suspension of sentence is not rigid and can be relaxed, and directed consolidation of related appeals for expeditious disposal.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 148 Negotiable Instruments Act suspension of sentence deposit condition

Zulfikar & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

05 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1015

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs registered for non-serious offences arising from a private dispute based on an amicable settlement between the parties under its inherent powers.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR compromise in criminal cases Section 528 BNSS non-serious offences

Shri Praveen Upadhyay and Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

05 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1014

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC Section 482 CrPC

Pushpender Gautam v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

05 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1013

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279 and 338 IPC based on a compromise between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in a private dispute without public interest.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR compromise Section 279 IPC Section 338 IPC

Constable Harpreet Singh v. Union of India

05 Feb 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:957-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the ITBP to obtain a compliant medical opinion under Rule 26(3) before deciding on the petitioner’s referral to the Review Medical Board and restrained coercive action pending such decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994 Rule 26(3) Review Medical Board medical opinion

M/S JIA LAL KISHORI LAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

05 Feb 2026 · Mini Pushkarna · 2026:DHC:979

The Delhi High Court held that a suit is not barred by limitation on the face of the plaint where acknowledgment and continuous cause of action exist, and rejected the defendants' application to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC limitation Section 18 Limitation Act cause of action

Shubham Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Feb 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:956-DB

The Delhi High Court directed a fresh and independent physical standard test for the petitioner challenging his disqualification on chest expansion grounds, binding parties to the outcome.

administrative petition_allowed Physical Standard Test chest expansion disqualification independent medical board

Smt. Chanda Devi & Ors. v. Union of India

05 Feb 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13504
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's rejection of compensation for death by accidental fall from train, holding the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the incident was not proven as an untoward incident under the Railways Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Railways Act, 1989 untoward incident bona fide passenger

Prashant Kumar Jha v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

05 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:960

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR under Section 354D IPC due to victim's unwillingness to continue prosecution, imposing costs on the petitioner as deterrence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 354D IPC quashing of FIR victim compromise criminal prosecution

State NCT of Delhi v. Asha Kaur

05 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:969

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's petition to cancel bail granted under the NDPS Act, holding that bail cannot be denied without incriminating evidence despite seriousness of offence or alleged evasiveness during interrogation.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail NDPS Act seriousness of offence nascent stage of investigation

Ravinder Rana v. Union of India

05 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:967

The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to expeditiously decide on concurrence for the petitioner’s premature release recommended by the Sentence Review Board and granted temporary exemption from surrender on humanitarian grounds.

criminal petition_allowed premature release Sentence Review Board concurrence of Union of India CBI prosecution

State v. Ritu Raj Thakur

05 Feb 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:947

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused husband, holding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 306 IPC Abetment of suicide Cruelty and harassment

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Raheja

05 Feb 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:946

The Delhi High Court held that documents not relied upon by the prosecution cannot be compelled to be produced at the charge framing stage under Section 91 Cr.P.C., and the validity of sanction for prosecution is to be examined during trial, setting aside the order directing production of such documents.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 91 Cr.P.C. sanction for prosecution framing of charge CBI investigation

Asha Bhatia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

05 Feb 2026 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2026:DHC:943

The Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate's discretion in refusing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a Will forgery dispute pending before the probate court, dismissing the petition for quashing the order denying FIR registration.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. police investigation probate court Will dispute

Babu Yamin v. State

05 Feb 2026 · Chandrasekharan Sudha, J. · 2026:DHC:922
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act based on reliable testimony of a minor victim and held that minor inconsistencies and non-compliance with Section 232 CrPC did not vitiate the trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 sexual assault minor victim testimony Section 10 PoCSO Act

Mohd. Salman v. State

05 Feb 2026 · Chandrasekharan Sudha, J. · 2026:DHC:918

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the appellant's sentence to the period already served on parity grounds while confirming the fine, holding that non-compliance with Section 232 CrPC does not vitiate trial absent prejudice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 394 IPC Section 34 IPC Section 232 CrPC Section 313 CrPC

Rajesh v. State of Delhi

05 Feb 2026 · Chandrasekharan Sudha, J. · 2026:DHC:916

The High Court acquitted the accused of kidnapping and sexual assault charges under IPC and PoCSO Act due to inconsistent victim testimony and lack of evidence of kidnapping or compulsion, granting benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant kidnapping consent of minor PoCSO Act Section 363 IPC

Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarjinder Kumar Bansal

05 Feb 2026 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2026:DHC:944

The Delhi High Court held that contempt proceedings for violation of an interim arbitral order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be initiated only upon a reference by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 27(5), and dismissed a direct contempt petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as not maintainable.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim orders Section 27(5) contempt reference Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Devyanshu Suryavanshi & Ors. v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr.

05 Feb 2026 · Anil Ksheterpal; Amit Mahajan · 2026:DHC:925-DB
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of challenges to the SSC's CGLE 2024 final answer key and evaluation, affirming limited judicial review in academic matters and deference to expert opinion.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant judicial review academic evaluation Staff Selection Commission Combined Graduate Level Examination