$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8940/2025 MAYANK SABLANIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Chauhan, Advocate with Petitioners (in-Persons).

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.

Mr. Mohit Chadha, Advocate for R-2

2 with R-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. 197/2021 dated 28^th June, 2021 registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ at P.S. Inder Puri, Delhi, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, whereby the offence under Section 406 IPC has also been added against the Petitioners.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 1^st December, 2009, as per Hindu rites

and ceremonies. Parties have a child 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 of their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi and the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have executed a Settlement Agreement dated 9^th February, 2024, whereby Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of INR 18,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. 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 18^th September, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

5. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person, duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms the settlement is arrived voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. She further confirms that in terms of the settlement agreement, she has received the entire settlement amount. The Petitioners have also appeared in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the foregoing, the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.

3 “IPC”

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 c