$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1203/2026 VINAY KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Jakhu, Advocate with petitioners through VC.

versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Rajesh, PS-Palam Village.

Ms. Anjali Madhar, Advocate for R-2 (R-2 through VC).

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026

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. 257/2023 dated 25.04.2023, registered at Police Station Palam Village, New Delhi, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”], accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Anjali Madhar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 18.05.2019 according to Hindu customs and rites. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the mother and sister of petitioner No. 1, respectively. No child has been born out of the wedlock. Differences arose between the parties during the course of the marriage, resulting in their living separately from 26.06.2019.

4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners on 25.04.2023. It is noted that no chargesheet has been filed as yet.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Settlement dated 28.05.2025, in terms whereof it was agreed that a total sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- shall be paid to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims, including permanent alimony, stridhan, and maintenance (past, present, and future). The settlement provides for payment in four instalments: Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of execution of the Memorandum of Settlement, Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of recording of statements in the first motion proceedings, Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of recording of statements in the second motion proceedings, and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of quashing of the aforesaid FIR before this Court.

6. The marriage between the parties was subsequently dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 16.01.2026 by the Family Court, South-West, Dwarka in HMA 136/2026. 7. In light of the aforesaid settlement, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. While an offence under Section 498-A IPC is ordinarily non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate circumstances, High Courts, exercising their inherent 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 the parties have amicably settled their dispute, so long as such quashing does not compromise any overriding public interest.

11. 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 th