$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1245/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5034/2026 ANIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Deepak Parashar & Ms. Neha, Advocates.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT)

OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.

Mr. Prakhar Singh & Ms. Anjali Prakash, Advocates for R-2.

SI Manish Giri, PS GTB Enclave ASI Asha Rani, PS Seelam Pur.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 13.02.2026

1. 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. 382/2020 dated 28.12.2020, registered at Police Station G.T.B. Enclave, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Prakhar Singh, 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 petitioners are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by her learned counsel and the IO.

5. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is the sister of petitioner No.1.

6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 18.04.2018. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 15.07.2020.

No child was born from the wedlock.

7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 18.08.2020, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.

8. During the pendency of the investigation, the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2 passed away, and proceedings against her stand abated.

A death certificate has also been placed on record.

9. A chargesheet was subsequently filed on 15.06.2022, against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3 however was not charge sheeted. 10. The parties have settled all their disputes, as recorded in a Settlement Agreement dated 14.04.2025 was executed between them.

11. The Settlement Agreement states that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, and have restored matrimonial relations. I am informed that the parties have been residing together since 30.04.2025.

However, the Settlement Agreement contains certain clauses imposing restrictions upon respondent No. 2, which appear to be unreasonable and implausible, including a stipulation requiring respondent No. 2 to obtain prior permission from petitioner No. 1 to visit her parental home. It also contains certain stipulations regarding the place of residence of her son from a previous marriage, who has since attained majority. Mr. Deepak Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the said clause was inadvertently incorporated and does not reflect the true intent or understanding between the parties. In this regard, an affidavit dated 13.02.2026 has been handed up, clarifying that the aforesaid clause stands deleted. The said affidavit is taken on record. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement shall stand modified, to the extent indicated in the affidavit dated 13.02.2026.

12. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

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

14. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Cour