$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6822/2025 & CRL.M.A. 28695/2025 RAJINDER & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Yashpal Jolly, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.

SI Jay Prakash, PS-Rajouri Garden.

Appearance not given for R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 28.01.2026

1. 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. 871/2021 dated 14.10.2021, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1.

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 20.02.2016, but due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences the parties have lived separately since the year 2020. Two children were born from the wedlock.

6. Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 12.06.2021, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against seven accused persons, being her husband, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and three sisters-in-law.

7. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed only against respondent No. 2’s husband, mother-in-law, and younger brother-in-law [petitioners herein]. The older brother-in-law, and three sisters-in-law of respondent No. 2 were not charge sheeted.

8. During pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a agreement dated 02.01.2024.

9. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

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

11. The Settlement Agreement contemplates dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. Pursuant thereto, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce [in HMA No. 2697/2024] by mutual consent by the Principal Judge, Family Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 09.10.2024. The settlement also contemplates custody of the two minor children with petitioner No. 1. The settlement also records that petitioner No.1 has returned all the articles/belongings of the complainant including her jewellery.

12. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is 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.

13. 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