$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8788/2025 MR. MADAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amrendra K.. Tiwary, Advocate for P-1 to P-6 versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State alongwith SI Suresh K.

Meena, P.S.-New Usman Pura CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 36643/2025 (Exemption

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 8788/2025

3. The present petition has been filed 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. 340/2012 dated 31.12.2012, registered at Police Station New Usman Pur, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], 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.

4. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, the wife of petitioner No. 1 herein. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are the father- in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brothers-in-law of respondent No. 2, respectively.

5. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 21.05.2010. One female child was born from the said wedlock. Differences arose between the parties, as a result of which they have been living separately since May 2011.

6. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 preferred a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Old Police Station, Nand Nagri, Delhi, against petitioner No. 1 and his family members, on the basis of which FIR No. 340/2012 came to be registered on 31.12.2012.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement, which was reduced into writing by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.10.2013, executed before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

8. 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 passed by the Family Court on 24.02.2016.

9. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, has been identified by the Investigating Officer, and submits that she does not seek the assistance of counsel.

10. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the parties jointly seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

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 has been amicably settled and no overriding public interest is adversely affected.

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, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation,