$~132 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 559/2026 SH KARAN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Avadh Narayan, Mr. Neel Kumar Sharma, Mr. A.K. Kashyap and Mr. Bhumit, Advocates alongwith petitioners versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State alongwith ASI Parveen Kumar, P.S.-South West Zone, SI Ram Nivas and SI Johny Kumar, P.S.-Uttam Nagar CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 2245/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 559/2026

3. 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. 497/2018 dated 06.06.2018, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.

4. The said FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was married to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner No. 1, respectively, and petitioner No. 4 is his brother.

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 06.11.2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. Differences arose during the subsistence of the marriage, as a result of which the parties have been residing separately since 24.05.2017. No child was born out of the said wedlock.

6. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband (petitioner No. 1) and his family members, alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of persistent demands for dowry. Pursuant thereto, the present FIR came to be registered on 06.06.2018.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement and amicably resolved all their disputes vide Settlement Agreement dated 03.12.2018. In terms thereof, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to respondent No. 2 in three instalments. Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she has received the entire settled amount.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by the learned Family Court on

18.07.2019.

9. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and has been identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the subsequent dissolution of marriage, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings.

11. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences, where the dispute is essentially private in nature and no overriding public interest is involved.

12. 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 guiding factor. No doubt