$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2150/2025 MD JUNAID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitesh Saini, Advocate via video-

conferencing.

Petitioner in-person.

versus STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State alongwith Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr Ashivini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocates.

Respondent No.2 in-person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 104/2025 dated 19.02.2025 registered under sections 3 & 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 at P.S.:

Jamia Nagar, South-East Delhi.

2. Sections 3 & 4 of the Act read as under :

3. Talaq to be void and illegal.—Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall bevoidandillegal.

4. Punishment for pronouncing talaq.—Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extendtothree years,andshall also beliabletofine.

3. Mr. Nitesh Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that by way of a Settlement Deed dated 20.05.2025, the contesting parties have resolved all their disputes amicably.

4. The court has interacted with the petitioner, who has expressed regret on his conduct of having pronounced ‘triple talaq’, which practice has been struck-down by the Supreme Court in its decision in Shayara Bano vs. Union of India¹ and is now also unlawful in view of section

3 of the Act.

5. The petition is supported by affidavits of the petitioner and of respondent No.2, alongwith proofs of their IDs. The affidavit filed by respondent No.2 says that she has signed Settlement Deed dated 20.05.2025; and recites that the petitioner has unconditionally accepted respondent No. 2 back as his wife and that they have resumed their matrimonial relationship for the welfare of their children.

6. Section 7 of the Act reads as under :

7. Offence to be cognizable, compoundable, etc.—

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2of 1974),—

(a) an offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable, if information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the married Muslim womanuponwhomtalaq is pronounced or anypersonrelatedtoher bybloodor marriage;

(b) an offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable, at the instance of the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced with the permission of the Magistrate,on suchterms andconditions as hemaydetermine (2017)9SCC1 (c) no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall be released on bail unless the Magistrate, on an application filed by the accused and after hearing the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced, is satisfied that therearereasonablegrounds for grantingbail tosuchperson.

(emphasis supplied)

7. The court has interacted with respondent No.2, who is present in-

person, and is identified by the I.O. She confirms that she has signed the settlement deed; and that she wishes to continue cohabitation with the petitioner, alongwith their 03 minor children. She confirms that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings in the subject FIR any longer.

8. Ms. Chavi Lazarus, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC leaves it to the court to pass appropriate orders.

9. In view of the fact that the offence is compoundable, instead of relegating the parties back before the learned Magistrate for compounding the offence, in the interests of the parties; and for sake of their peaceful cohabitation, this court is persuaded to allow the present petition.

10. Accordingly, case FIR No. 104/2025 da