$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1069/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4226/2026 GAURAV GAUTAM & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rishi Kumar, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Ms.

Pragati Gupta and Mr. Samar Pratap Singh, Advocates.

SI Om Yadav, PS: Palam Village.

Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

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

complainant.

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. 791/2023 dated 05.12.2023, registered at Police Station Palam Village, District South West, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

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

4. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 04.03.2022, but started living separately in October 2022. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell alleging demands for dowry on multiple occasions, as well as physical and verbal abuse and cruelty. Pursuant thereto, the impugned FIR was registered at her instance against three accused persons, namely her husband and parents-in-law [petitioners herein].

5. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/354A/506/34 of the IPC. Petitioner No. 3 was chargesheeted under Section 354A of the IPC.

6. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a settlement dated 08.10.2025, under the aegis of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. As per the settlement, the parties agreed to resume cohabitation, and to fulfill their matrimonial obligations.

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

8. The parties are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.

9. Respondent No. 2 has filed her no-objection affidavit before this Court, and learned counsel confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any force or coercion. Respondent No. 2 further submits that the allegations, including the allegation against her father-in- law [petitioner No. 3 herein] for the offence punishable under Section 354A of the IPC, arose out of a misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to pursue the same.

10. The settlement records that the parties have been living together since 25.08.2025, and that respondent No. 2 shall withdraw the pending cases.

11. Although offences under Sections 354A and 498A of the IPC are 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.

12. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 ultim