$~49

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 9264/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38654/2025

RAHUL BATRA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate.

versus

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

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP.

Mr. Manish Jha, Advocate with R-

2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 719/2026 (for exemption

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 9264/2025

1. The petitioner has 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. 328/2023 dated 28.05.2023, lodged at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 354/354-A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the

ground of settlement.

2. The present FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against her sister-in-law’s husband, i.e., the petitioner herein. Both parties

are present in Court and are identified by their counsel and by the Investigating Officer.

3. The brother-in-law of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 15.11.2021, but have lived separately since 31.03.2023. The divorce proceedings have already concluded in a decree of divorce.

4. Another FIR No. 821/2023 dated 06.10.2023, registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla at the instance of respondent No.2 against her husband and his family members against Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, has already been quashed by a judgment of this Court dated 24.12.2025 in CRL.M.C.9306/2025 [Ujwal Chadha & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.], on the basis of a settlement entered into between the parties on 08.09.2025.

5. In light of the aforesaid, the parties in the present petition seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

6. Mr. Manish Jha, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the FIR was registered on a misunderstanding and respondent No.2 does not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings. Upon settlement of the disputes between the respondent No.2 and her husband, she wishes to proceed with her life harmoniously and does not wish to have any impediment in the future progress of her personal and professional life.

She, therefore, seeks quashing of the present FIR.

7. Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, also confirms that this order will result in an end to the disputes, and no further proceedings will be taken between the parties in this regard.

8. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 354A 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.

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 withou