$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9059/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37914/2025 GOPAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Appearance not given by counsel for Petitioners.

Petitioners-in-persons.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI PS SUBHASH PLACE & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State.

Mr. Sanjeev Solanki, Mr. Khen Chand & Mr. Sandeep Nain, Advs.

Ms. Rachna Jasaiwal, Mr. Nitesh Khatri, Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advs.

SI Geeta, P.S. Subhash Place.

Respondent no. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “Cr.P.C.”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 445/2017 dated 7^th September, 2017,, “impugned FIR” registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ at P.S. Subhash Place, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 3^rd February, 2008 as per Hindu rites

and ceremonies. Parties have no child from this marriage. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties have been living separately since 9^th February, 2023. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against Petitioners, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, which later culminated into the impugned FIR.

4. The parties of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences before the Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Deed dated 10^th December, 2024, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 7,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement amount. As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent through order dated 19^th July, 2025 passed by the Family Court, District North-West, Rohini, Delhi.

5. Respondent No. 2, appearing in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that in terms of the agreement, she has already received a sum of INR 5,00,000/- from the Petitioners. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, the Petitioners have tendered the balance amount of INR 2,50,000/- to Respondent No. 2 by

4 “IPC”

way of a demand draft bearing No. 502619 during the proceedings. The same has been duly received and acknowledged by Respondent no. 2. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.

6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable. However, it is well- established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,, (2014) 6 SCC 466 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settle