$~123

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 294/2026

AMIT RAJPUT AND ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Ms. Sunaina, Mr. Jagjit, Mr.

Lakshay Beniwal, Ms. Appurvi, Mr. Yudhvir Dalal & Mr. Anshul,

Advocates.

versus

STATE (GNCTD) & ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State

with SI Sanju Kumari, P.S. Palam

Village.

Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate for R2

alongwith R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

CRL.M.A. 1093/2026 (for exemption

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 1094/2026 (for condonation of delay in re-filing

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in

re-filing the captioned petition.

For the reasons stated, the application is allowed, and the delay is

condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 294/2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Pankaj Singh,

learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 188/2022, dated 23.04.2022, registered under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi, on the ground of settlement.

3. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 – complainant, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, respectively. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed under Sections

354C/34/201 of the IPC.

4. Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were married on 21.01.2014, but have been living separately since 02.03.2022. One child was born from the wedlock on 17.11.2014.

5. Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.12.2024. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

6. The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. The complainant is also present in person, and is identified by her learned counsel, who is present on video conference, and the IO.

7. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court on 03.05.2025.

8. The settlement also records that petitioner No. 1 has returned all the articles/belongings of the complainant, including her jewellery, clothes, educational documents, and passport.

9. As the Memorandum of Understanding was only signed by petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, the complainant’s statement has been recorded separately. She has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR against all three petitioners. A copy of the statement be kept in a sealed cover. The electronic record will have the name of the complainant redacted.

10. Although the offences under Sections 354C and 201 of the IPC are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to a