$~37

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 6318/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26706/2025

SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Ms. Sushmita Panwar, Advocate.

versus

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

Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State.

SI Ajeet Singh, PS-Kapashera.

Ms. Asha Yadav, Advocate for R-2

with R-2.

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. 345/2021 dated 02.09.2021, registered at Police Station Kapashera, South West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings

emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

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

learned counsel and the IO.

3. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on

19.04.2009 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. Two children were born from the wedlock.

4. Due to matrimonial disputes and differences between the parties, respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR on 02.09.2021 against her then husband (petitioner No. 1) and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, who are his family members. A chargesheet has been subsequently filed on 11.08.2023.

5. The disputes between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were referred to counselling at the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, South West District, Dwarka Courts. The parties amicably settled all their disputes vide a Settlement dated 18.10.2022, wherein they agreed that there was no possibility of reunion due to irreconcilable differences and that they would dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.

6. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi [in HMA Petition No. 831/2023], on

25.07.2023.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2 submit that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, and without any coercion or undue pressure. In view thereof, they seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings.

8. 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.

9. 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