$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8693/2025 DEVENDRA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohd. Azeem, Advocate with Petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State with SI Rohit Sagar, PS Laxmi Nagar.

Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025

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. 643/2017 dated 22^nd October, 2017,, “impugned FIR” registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” at P.S. Shakarpur, Delhi 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/Complainant. The marriage between Petitioner

No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30^th April, 2015, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. There is one child from the said marriage. Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties started living separately thereafter. 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 on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences. A mediation settlement dated 24^th July, 2025 has been executed between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, whereby Respondent No. 2 has agreed to move back in the company of Petitioner No. 1. Additionally, the parties have agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts.

5. Respondent No. 2, who appears in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and raises no objection to quashing the FIR. She is living with the Petitioner since July 2025 and that their relationship is cordial, with no subsisting grievances. She explains that the allegations in the FIR arose out of misunderstandings and in fit of anger, and that the Petitioner has since apologised and has not engaged in any further acts of domestic violence. She also emphasises that their nine-year- old child is living with them, and that continuation of the proceedings would unnecessarily rekindle discord and adversely impact the welfare of the child. In these circumstances, she expresses her desire not to pursue the impugned proceedings.

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