$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8089/2025, CRL.M.A. 33788/2025 & CRL.M.A.

33789/2025 KUSHAL NAWARIYA & ORS ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate along with Petitioner No. 1 in person.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ...Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 482 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. 169/2019, registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC”, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, whereby the offence under Section

506 IPC was also added.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, and Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30^th November, 2017, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have no child from this marriage. Owing to

matrimonial disputes 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 state that they have amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a settlement on 19^th May, 2025 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. As per the terms of the settlement, parties have agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 6^th September, 2025, passed by the Family Courts, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.

5. Respondent No. 2 appears in person before this Court, duly identified by the Investigating Officer, and states that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. She affirms that the settlement dated 19^th May, 2025 was arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion, and that in terms thereof, she has received the entire settled amount. She further states that subsequent to the settlement and receipt of the agreed amount, she was constrained to make a payment of INR 1,37,000/- to one Mr. Gajraj pursuant to threats extended by him. During the course of the present proceedings, the said Mr. Gajraj appeared and voluntarily returned the aforesaid amount to Respondent No. 2, which is duly acknowledged by her. Respondent No. 2 states that she has no surviving grievance of any nature against the Petitioners, that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

6. Respondent No. 2 further states that she does not endorse the averments made in paragraph 5 of the petition and asserts that the FIR was lodged for bona fide reasons and not on account of any misunderstanding. Counsel for the Petitioners, in response, submits that the quashing of proceedings is not sought on the basis of the said averments but solely on the ground of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. The Court has considered the aforenoted facts, including the statements made by Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners, and has perused the settlement arrived at between the parties.

8. Notably, the offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable, while the offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC are compoundable in certain cases. 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