$~161 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 363/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1367-1368/2026 NEHA MAHAJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Gaur, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP with SI Sanjay, PS: Sarojini Nagar.

Appearance for respondent No.2 not given.

R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 15.01.2026

1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973], the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.336/2020, dated 26.10.2020, registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, under Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”], and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”].

2. It is stated that the petitioner and the complainant [respondent No.2 herein] have settled their disputes.

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

4. The petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

5. The subject FIR was registered on 26.10.2020 against an unknown person, on a complaint by respondent No. 2, that a fake profile in her name had been created on a dating website, namely Tinder. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed in which the petitioner herein, who was married to the complainant’s brother, was accused of the offence under Section 66C of the IT Act and Section 509 of the IPC.

6. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have signed a settlement agreement dated 12.08.2025, in which they have agreed to quashing of the impugned FIR.

7. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are present in Court, and are identified by their respective counsel and by the Investigating Officer.

8. It appears that there was also a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband [brother of the complainant] which have since been settled, in terms of an agreement dated 04.07.2020, and all cases pending between the parties have either been withdrawn or quashed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and her husband have since also resulted in a decree of divorce.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person, and the complainant does not wish to proceed in criminal proceedings against her former sister-in-law, with whom her brother has settled his matrimonial disputes.

10. 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.

11. 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, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of