$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 740/2026, CRL.M.A. 2941-2942/2026 GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja, Mr. J.S. Juneja, Advocates with petitioners.

versus THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Sumeet Ponia, P.S. Vivek Vihar.

Mr. Ashish K. Singh with Mr. A.K. Sharma, Ms. Shalu and Mr. M.K. Goswami, Advocates for R2 with R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ashish K. Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –

complainant.

2. 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. 71/2023 dated 16.02.2023, lodged at Police Station Vivek Vihar, District Shahdara, New Delhi, under Sections 376/509/506/323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 12.09.2021, but have been living separately since 22.02.2022. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, against four accused persons, being her husband, parents-in-law, and brother-in-law [petitioners herein]. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed. Although petitioner No. 3 [father-in-law] was chargesheeted under Section 376 of the IPC, he was subsequently discharged from the offence punishable under Section 376 vide order on charge dated 09.01.2024, passed by the Sessions Court. That order was challenged by respondent No.2 in CRL.REV.P. 630/2024. However, the same was withdrawn by order dated 23.09.2025, on the ground of settlement.

Charges were framed against the petitioners on 03.12.2024.

4. As things stand, therefore, the proceedings do not involve charges under Section 376 of the IPC.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.09.2025. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

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

7. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is represented by counsel. She submits that the allegations under Section 354 of the IPC arose out of misunderstandings in the course of the matrimonial disputes between her and her husband.

8. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. 9. 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 Family Court on 24.11.2025.

10. The settlement also provides that the petitioners shall return the articles/belongings of respondent No. 2, including her jewellery, clothes, furniture, and appliances. I am informed that all the articles were returned to respondent No. 2, except a gold set, which has been handed over to her in Court.

11. Although the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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.

12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proce