##PAGE1##

$~33

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 9290/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38769/2025

MUKESH & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Deepak Rajwat, Mr. Rishabh

Goyal, Mr. Dev Gupta, Mr. Harsh

Jain, Advocates with Petitioners in

person.

versus

STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the

State

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Mr. Arun

Bhargav, Advocates for R-2.

Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 24.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, “Cr.P.C.”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 423/2023, registered at P.S.

Budh Vihar for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, “IPC” and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the in-

laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and

CRL.M.C. 9290/2025 Page 1 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 19:32:01

Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 25^th November, 2020, as per Hindu

rites and ceremonies. Parties have one child from this marriage. Due to

matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship

between the parties deteriorated, leading to separation in September, 2022.

Several efforts for reconciliation were made, but to no avail.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the

Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later

culminated into the impugned FIR.

4. The parties, of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or

undue influence, have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences.

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Deed

dated 29^th October, 2024 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR

6,90,000/- to Respondent No. 2, who, in turn, agreed to withdraw all

proceedings pending before various Courts. It was also agreed that the

custody of the minor child shall rest with Respondent No. 2, with no

visitation rights to Petitioner No. 1. In furtherance of this settlement,

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by

mutual consent by order dated 25^th October, 2025 passed by the Family

Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi.

5. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person and is duly identified by the

Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to

the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that in terms of the

Settlement Agreement, she has already received a total sum of INR

2,90,000/- from the Petitioners. Additionally, the Petitioners have tendered

an FDR for the balance amount of INR 4,00,000/- in the name of the minor

CRL.M.C. 9290/2025 Page 2 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 19:32:01

child to Respondent No. 2 during the proceedings. The same has been duly

received and acknowledged by Respondent No. 2. In light of the foregoing,

counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.

6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence

under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under

Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

7. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers

under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can

compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is

a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh

& Ors. v. State of Punjab