$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 361/2026 MR RAJIV KUMAR ROY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Janki Raman Jha, Advocate alongwith P-1 to 5 in Person.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) with Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocate. SI Neeraj, PS Saket.

Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar & Mr. Abinav Kumar, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-2 in Person. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3481/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 361/2026

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR No. 270/2025 dated 29.07.2025, lodged at Police Station Saket, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Jitender Mehta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

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

4. The FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 4 is the sister of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 5 is the daughter of petitioner No. 4 [niece of petitioner No. 1].

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.06.2017, but have lived separately since 09.06.2023. A child was born from the wedlock on 23.07.2022.

6. Respondent No.2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 16.12.2024, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against five accused persons, being her husband, parents-

in-law, sister-in-law, and niece-in-law.

7. No charge sheet has been filed yet.

8. During pendency of proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 11.10.2025.

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

10. The petitioners are present, and are identified by learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person and is identified by her learned counsel and IO.

11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce [in HMA No. 2193/2025] by mutual consent by the Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, on 12.12.2025.

12. 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.

13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303] 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 because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of