$~39

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 6399/2025

NITIN RATHI AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajesh Dabas, Mr. Samarth

Dabas, Advocates.

versus

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

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the

State.

SI Divya Gehlot, PS- Vasant Kunj

North.

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for R- 2, with Respondent No. 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. 164/2025 dated 23.04.2025, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, South West District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/354/34 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, Mr. Rajesh Dabas, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by

her learned counsel, Mr. Ajay Kumar, and the IO.

3. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 21.02.2023. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 20.06.2024.

No child was born from the wedlock.

4. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, P.S. Delhi Cantonment, on 25.10.2024, against her husband (petitioner No. 1) and the other petitioners, who are his family members, on allegations of harassment for dowry, physical abuse, and outraging her modesty, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered on 23.04.2025. No chargesheet has yet been filed.

5. With the intervention of relatives, friends and well-wishers, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes on 30.06.2025. A settlement agreement was executed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, whereby they agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

6. In terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- to respondent No. 2 in three instalments towards full and final settlement of all her claims.

5. Mr. Rajesh Dabas submits that pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, South West District, Dwarka, Delhi, on 11.11.2025.

7. Mr. Ajay Kumar states that the allegation under Section 354 IPC against petitioner No. 3, i.e., brother-in-law of respondent No. 2, arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from the domestic discord.

8. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

Thus, they seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

9. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 498A of IPC are 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.

10. 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 harm