$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3586/2025 & CRL.M.As. 15801/2025, 15802/2025 MR GAURAV AHLAWAT AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Appearance not given by counsel for Petitioners.

Petitioners (in-Persons).

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APVP for State.

W/SI Heena Harbala, P.S. V.K.

North.

Respondent No. 2 (in-Person).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 15.12.2025

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, “CrPC”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 83/2025 dated 10^th February, 2025, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” at P.S. Vasant Kunj, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 12^th March, 2011, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. There are two children from the said marriage. Owing to

matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately.

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 on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences. A Settlement Deed dated 29^th April, 2025, has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby Respondent No. 2 has agreed to move back in the company of Petitioner No. 1 and withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts.

5. Respondent No. 2, appearing in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. To this effect, her Affidavit/No Objection Certificate is also on record. She further states that she is now happily living with her husband and has no surviving complaints.

6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases.

7. 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 settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) end