$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1252/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5041/2026 MUKESH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Deep Kishore, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP, with SI Anjali Appearance not given for R2.

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. 556/2017, dated 22.12.2017, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, 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. 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 mother of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No.1.

6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 15.11.2013. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 16.07.2017.

No child was born from the wedlock.

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

8. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against the petitioners herein, being the husband, mother-in-law, and one brother-in-law. The husband was charged with an additional offence under Section 509 of IPC, and the brother-in-law was further charged with Sections 354/354B of IPC. Rest of the family members were not charge sheeted.

9. The marriage stood dissolved prior to the settlement in view of a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed by the Family Court on

11.10.2021.

10. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Order dated 10.11.2025, under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts.

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

12. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court, and submits that the allegations against petitioner No. 3 under Sections 354 and 354B of the IPC arose out of a misunderstanding in connection with her matrimonial dispute.

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

14. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), 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.

15. 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