SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VED PRAKASH VS. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 9222/2025



##PAGE1##

$~12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 9222/2025, CRL.M.A. 38508/2025

PRAGAT SINGH JOLLY & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Md. Rais Farooqui, Mr. Laique

Shad Farooqui and Mr. Md. Imran

Malik, Advocates with Petitioners.

versus

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

Through: Mr. Vikas Dudeja, Advocate.

Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for

State with SI Jaivind Kumar, PS-

NFC.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

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. 269/2020, registered under

Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. New Friends

Colony, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are in-

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

Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 2nd February, 2014, as per Sikh rites

and ceremonies. Parties have one child from the said marriage. Due to

CRL.M.C. 9222/2025 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 21:49:51

##PAGE2##

matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship

between the parties deteriorated, leading to separation in June 2017. 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 on

3rd July, 2025, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR

80,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement amount, 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 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 11th November, 2025

passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District South-East, Saket

Court, 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 sum of INR 60,00,000/-

from the Petitioners. Additionally, in accordance with the Agreement, the

Petitioners have tendered an amount of INR 5,00,000/- by way of a demand

draft and an FDR for INR 15,00,000/- in the name of the minor daughter to

3 “IPC”

CRL.M.C. 9222/2025 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 21:49:51

##PAGE3##

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top