$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1131/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4465/2026 WASIL RAZA ANSARI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Kanchan Thapliyal, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with W/SI Nisha.

Mr. Ruhul Amin, Advocate for R-2 with R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026

1. The petitioners have preferred the present 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 the quashing of FIR No. 254/2025 dated 31.03.2025, registered at Police Station Kalandi Kunj, New Delhi, under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”], accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ruhul Amin, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 05.01.2008 according to Muslim customs and rites. Differences arose between the parties during the course of the marriage, resulting in their living separately from 05.08.2024. Three children were born out of the wedlock, namely, on 22.10.2008, 10.08.2011, and

20.03.2019. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1.

4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell against her husband, petitioner No. 1, and his parents, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on 31.03.2025. Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed, and Section 316(2) of BNS was added to the proceedings.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably settled their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.01.2026. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties have agreed to resume cohabitation alongwith their minor children and to fulfil their matrimonial obligations.

6. In light of the foregoing settlement, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

7. The petitioners are present and have been identified by their learned counsel as well as the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present and has been identified by her learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that pursuant to the settlement, the parties have reconciled and resumed living together. Respondent No. 2 affirms that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation, and that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

9. Although an offence under Section 85 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) is ordinarily non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences where a mutual compromise has been amicably arrived at between the parties, particularly when such quashing does not impinge upon any overriding public interest.

10. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303., 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 restore