$~35

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 5908/2025

PRASHANT MAHESHWARI & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP.

ASI Munni Khan.

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.

Mr. Braja Bandhu Pradhan,

Advocate.

R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. The petitioners have filed 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”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 227/2020 dated 30.06.2020, registered at Police Station G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, on the ground of settlement.

2. The FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of

petitioner No. 1.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.12.2017. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties

deteriorated and parties have been living separately since October 2019.

4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR.

5. The parties have entered into a settlement, as a result of mediation proceedings, as recorded in the order of the Mediation Centre dated

21.10.2024.

6. The settlement agreement was signed by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 [father of petitioner No. 1], and respondent No. 2. Although petitioner No. 3 [mother of petitioner No. 1] was not a signatory, the agreement expressly records that petitioner No. 1 was duly authorised to sign on her behalf and that the settlement binds all parties. Further, respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, has stated that she has no objection to quashing of the FIR against all three petitioners.

7. The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by her learned counsel and IO.

8. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

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

10. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has 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 an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitu