$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6726/2025 & CRL.M.As. 28295/2025, 28297/2025 DR HIMANSHU REDDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Viraj Kadam, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Arti Singh, PS Begumpur.

Mr. Bal Kishan Sharma, Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Advocates for R-2.

R-2 in person through VC.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bal Kishan Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –

complainant.

2. The petitioner has 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. 381/2022 dated 19.05.2022, lodged at Police Station Begampur, District Rohini, New Delhi, under Sections 354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

3. The FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent No. 2.

It is alleged therein that the petitioner instigated respondent No. 2 against her family members and pressurized her to get married at the earliest. It is further alleged that the petitioner furnished false information about himself and molested respondent No. 2 on multiple occasions. It is also stated that the petitioner threatened to commit suicide, on account of which respondent No. 2 was compelled to marry him on 09.05.2022.

4. The parties have since entered into a settlement, recorded in an order dated 22.07.2024, passed by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Family Court, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

5. The petitioner is present, and is identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference, and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.

6. Although some of the averments in the petition are disputed, particularly with regard to the romantic involvement of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the fact that they had solemnized their marriage on 09.05.2022 is not disputed. The parties have also consented to a decree of dissolution of their marriage as a nullity, as recorded in an order of the Family Court dated 24.08.2024.

7. Respondent No. 2 confirms that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR at this stage, and she remains bound by the compromise.

8. Although the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS], 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.

9. 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 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, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable i