$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8669/2025, CRL.M.A. 36189/2025 & CRL.M.A.

36190/2025 MR SHYAM SUNDER SEHGAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. U.K. Shandilya, Advocate with Petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State with SI Gaurav, PS Cyber West, SI Ritvij, PS Hari Nagar.

Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 04.12.2025

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. 130/2020 dated 22^nd March, 2020, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” at P.S. Hari Nagar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2 and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are her in-laws. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 09^th May, 1998, as per Hindu rites and

ceremonies. There are two children from the said marriage. Due to matrimonial discord, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and parties started living separately in December, 2020. Several efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the 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 21^st May, 2025 has been executed by Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, 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: