$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 467/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4260/2026 VIPUL CHOUDHARY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC. SI Ashok Singh, SI Pardeep, PS-Rani Bagh.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 1050/2023 dated 24.10.2023, registered at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. Notice was issued. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and has declined the assistance of counsel.

3. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 08.07.2022, and no child was born of the wedlock. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since October 2023. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the mother and sister of petitioner No. 1, respectively.

4. During the subsistence of the matrimonial disputes, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Delhi, which led to the registration of the FIR in question on 24.10.2023.

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

6. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Deed dated 12.12.2024. In terms of the Settlement Deed, petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship. The sum was to be paid in three tranches: Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before the recording of the First Motion, Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before the recording of the Second Motion, and the balance of Rs. 3,00,000/- at the time of quashing of the FIR.

7. 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, North-West, Delhi on 09.10.2025. Respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit dated 31.01.2026, affirming her unequivocal no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

8. In light of the foregoing, and the complete resolution of disputes between the parties, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 jointly seek the quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

9. Although the offence under Section 498A IPC is non- compoundable, it is well-settled that High Courts, in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), possess the authority to quash criminal proceedings even in respect of such offences, where the parties have amicably settled their disputes. This power is particularly warranted in cases where the continued prosecution of the proceedings would serve no legitimate public interest and would amount to an exercise in futility.

10. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has 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