$~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 981/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3865/2026 SANAY @ SANAY KATARIYA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aman Singh, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Mr. Shashikant, Advocates with petitioners.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Parveen.

Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for R2 with R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Nitin Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have approached this Court 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. 918/2021 dated 30.12.2021, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, District North East, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [“DP Act”], on the basis of an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 19.06.2017. Owing to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit harmoniously and have been living separately since 08.08.2020. No child has been born from the said wedlock.

4. Subsequent to leaving the matrimonial home, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell on 10.08.2020, which culminated in the registration of the impugned FIR, against her husband and his family members.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against five accused persons [petitioners herein] under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the DP Act. Although respondent No. 2’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC contained allegations under Section 376 of the IPC against one of the family members and under Section 377 of the IPC against her husband, those allegations are not part of the present proceedings, and cognizance has been taken only under Sections

498A/406/34 of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the DP Act.

6. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, as recorded in a Deed of Settlement dated 20.12.2023, entered into between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

7. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court, and has been identified by her learned counsel and the IO.

8. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, passed by the Family Court on 21.08.2024.

9. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/-, alongwith the return of certain articles, to respondent No. 2 by petitioner No.1, towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and represented by counsel, confirms that she has received the said amount and articles.

10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, and without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure.

11. Although offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act are non-compoundable in nature, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts may exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS] to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute has been amicably settled between the accused and the complainant, and where such qua