$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 993/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3887/2026 VIRENDER & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, Mr. Raj Kumar, Ms. Ritika Jain, Advocates with petitioners.

versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Ajay Kumar, AATS Rohini. SI Deepak, P.S. Budh Vihar.

Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026

1. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”], accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2, appears in person, and accepts notice. She states that she does not wish to avail the assistance of counsel.

2. The petitioners have 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. 146/2019 dated 24.06.2019, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar, District Rohini, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 19.04.2017. Differences arose during the course of the marriage, and the parties started residing separately in November 2020. Two children were born from the wedlock.

4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband [petitioner No. 1 herein], and his family members [petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 herein], on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on 24.06.2019.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their disputes under the aegis of the Counsellor, Family Court, North West District Rohini, New Delhi, on 12.03.2024. As per the settlement, the parties agreed to resume cohabitation alongwith their minor children, and to fulfill their matrimonial obligations.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

7. 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 the IO.

8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that pursuant to the settlement, the parties have reconciled and have been living together for the past one and a half years. Respondent No. 2 affirms that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence, and that she has no objection to quashing of the FIR. Learned APP has also interacted with her.

9. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], which held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard 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 vict