$~119 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 302/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2917/2026 AJAY DAYAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, Advocate.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State. ASI Youdhvir.

Mr. Pradeep Singh Solanki, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 271/2024 dated 14.05.2024, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as well as all proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Pradeep Singh Solanki, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 12.10.2021, and no child was born out of the wedlock.

Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since 20.07.2022. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the mother and aunt of petitioner No. 1, respectively.

4. During the subsistence of the matrimonial disputes, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Delhi, against her husband, i.e., petitioner No. 1, and certain members of his family, pursuant to which the subject FIR came to be registered on 14.05.2024. Although allegations were also levelled in the FIR against the father of petitioner No. 1, it is stated that he passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, and consequently, the proceedings against him have abated.

5. The petitioners are present through video conferencing and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conferencing and has been duly identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

6. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 resolved their inter se disputes and entered into an amicable settlement, which was duly recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 03.04.2025 under the aegis of the Family Court, Karkardooma, Delhi. In terms of the said Settlement Deed, the petitioners agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship. The agreed amount was stipulated to be paid in three tranches, namely, Rs.2,00,000/- on or before the recording of the First Motion, Rs.3,00,000/- on or before the recording of the Second Motion, and the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of quashing of the subject FIR.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by the Family Court on 10.09.2025. Respondent No. 2 has also placed on record an affidavit of no objection dated 22.12.2025, wherein she has unequivocally affirmed that the settlement was arrived at of her own free will and volition, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence.

8. In view of the foregoing circumstances and the complete resolution of disputes between the parties, the petitioners and Respondent No. 2 jointly seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

9. Notwithstanding that the offence under Section 498A IPC is non- compoundable in nature, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), are empowered to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of such offences where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, particularly in cases where the continuance of the proceedings would not subserve any overriding public in