$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1028/2026 NAVEEN MALHOTRA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Naresh Talwar & Mr. Archit Talwar, Advocates alongwith Petitioners in Person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State, with W/SI Seema PS Prashant Vihar.

Mr. Naresh Dahiya, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in Person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 4022/2026 (Exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1028/2026

1. The present petition has been filed 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. 201/2024 dated 11.05.2024, registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Subodh Gupta, 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 impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who was married to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1. No child has been born out of the wedlock.

5. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 21.05.2022. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the parties have been residing separately since

07.07.2022.

6. Subsequent to leaving the matrimonial home, respondent No. 2 approached the Crime Against Women Cell, Rohini, which culminated in the registration of the present FIR on 11.05.2024. The charge-sheet in the said matter is yet to be filed.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and entered into a settlement, which has been reduced into writing in the form of a Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.08.2025.

8. In terms of the settlement, the petitioners agreed to pay respondent No. 2 a total sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship. Respondent No. 2 has confirmed before this Court that the entire settlement amount has been received.

9. The parties have jointly affirmed before this Court that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, of their own free will, and without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have also confirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement.

10. The petitioners are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and has been duly identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

11. In view of the aforesaid settlement and the resolution of all inter se disputes between the parties, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

12. The Compromise Deed further envisaged dissolution of the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 by mutual consent. Pursuant thereto, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed in HMA No. 1729/2025 by the learned Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, on 31.10.2025.

13. Although the offence under Section 498A IPC is non- compoundable, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences where the dispute has been amicably settled, provided su