$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 284/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2776/2026 RISHI GOYAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Shreya Mitra, Ms. Anuradha Mitra and Mr. Raghav Mishra, Advocates with petitioners in person. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC with Mr.

Aryan Sachdeva, Advocate.

Ms. Prabha and Mr. Sourabh Saini, Advocates for R2 with R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 28.01.2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Prabha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 170/2022 dated 25.02.2022, lodged at Police Station Farsh Bazar, District Shahdara, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 01.11.2017. One child was born from the wedlock on 14.09.2018. However, due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, they have been living separately since 02.12.2019.

4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against her husband and his family members [petitioners herein]. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/34/377/354A of the IPC. A copy of the chargesheet has been handed up in Court and is taken on record.

5. Mr. Lao states that the allegations under Section 354A against the father-in-law and brother-in-law [petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 herein], and under Section 377 against the husband [petitioner No. 1 herein] were included in the chargesheet, upon a statement being recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since settled their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated

02.08.2025. The parties, therefore, seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

7. 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.

8. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is represented by counsel. She submits that the aforesaid allegations under Sections 354A and 377 of the IPC arose out of misunderstandings in the course of the matrimonial disputes between her and her husband.

9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

10. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 12.12.2025.

11. The settlement also contemplates payment of a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2. I am informed that petitioner No. 1 has paid Rs. 25,00,000/- till date. The remaining amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court by way of a demand draft.

12. Although the offences under Sections 498A, 354A, and 377 of the IPC are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers, 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. 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 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 fu