$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8863/2025 PULAK SHUKLA & ANR ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. S.C.

Sharma and Mr. Rahul Chhonkar, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ......Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State along with SI Priyanka Saini, PS Binda Pur. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “CrPC” seeks quashing of FIR No. 428/2021, registered at P.S. Binda Pur, for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC”, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2, while Petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between

1 “BNSS”

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 21^st April, 2014, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have one child from this marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, leading to separation in October 2019.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against, inter alia, the Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR. Pertinently, apart from the Petitioners, one Jaya Shukla, the mother of Petitioner No. 1, was also implicated as a co- accused in the FIR. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioners for the aforenoted offences, whereas Jaya Shukla was placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet.

4. The parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences. They have executed a Settlement Deed dated 1^st March, 2023 before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a sum of INR 5,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement who, in turn, has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. It has further been agreed that the custody of the minor child shall rest with Respondent No. 2, with visitation rights to Petitioner No. 1. In furtherance of this settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent by order dated 28^th July, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi.

5. Pertinently, there is no settlement between the complainant and her mother-in-law, Ms. Jaya Shukla. The Petitioners state that they are unaware of her present whereabouts, and she has not been arrayed as a party to the present petition. Further, although Ms. Jaya Shukla was placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet, the Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the offences, has issued notice to her as well.

6. Respondent No. 2, who appears before the Court in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, states that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR qua the Petitioners. She, however, clarifies that there has been no settlement with Ms. Jaya Shukla and, therefore, she does not consent to the quashing of the FIR against her. She confirms that in accordance with the terms of settlement, she has already the entire settlement amount of INR 5,00,000/- from the Petitioners. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR.

7. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

8. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to 482 of CrPC), can compound offences which are non-compoundable o