$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4158/2025 BABU RAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Panwar.

R-2 is present in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026

1. The petitioner has filed 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”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 250/2011 dated 17.06.2011, registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of the complainant/respondent No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were married on 23.05.2004. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 22.07.2007.

6. The complainant lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Rohini, Delhi, on 30.10.2009 against her husband, i.e., the petitioner, and his family members alleging persistent dowry demands, physical assaults, mental cruelty, and threats to her life. Based on the said complaint, the present FIR was registered on 17.06.2011. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and charges were subsequently framed against the present petitioner under sections 498A/406, IPC, by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), District North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 01.12.2023. 7. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. The complainant, who is present in person, is not represented by any counsel and declines the assistance of a legal aid counsel, and is also identified by the IO.

8. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and respondent No.2 in person, submit that the parties had settled all their disputes amicably on 30.11.2011, and obtained a divorce from the Judge, Family Court, District North West, Rohini, Delhi, on 28.02.2019 [in HMA Petition No. 511/2019]. They confirm that the settlement had been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

10. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

11. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303. has held as follows:

“58.Where the HighCourt quashes a criminal proceedinghavingregard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only