$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 567/2026 & CM APPL. 5331/2026 VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Mahiya and Mr.

Devendra Kumar, Advocates.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) alongwith Mr. Abhinav Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates.

SI Pratiksha, P.S. Prem Nagar.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for R2 alongwith R2 in Person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 17.02.2026

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of FIR No. 13/2022 dated 03.01.2022, registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Rohini, New Delhi, 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. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 – complainant.

3. Respondent No. 2 got married to the son of petitioner No. 1 on 12.03.2019. Her husband passed away on 18.01.2021, following which she has been residing at her parental home since February 2021.

4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, against three accused persons, namely her father-in-law and sisters- in-law [petitioners herein], alleging demands for dowry on multiple occasions, as well as physical and verbal abuse.

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a settlement dated 24.03.2025, under the aegis of the Counselling Cell, Family Court, North-West District, Rohini, New Delhi.

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

7. 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.

8. The settlement contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, alongwith the return of certain articles, to respondent No. 2 by petitioner No. 1, towards full and final settlement of all claims. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person and represented by counsel, confirms that she has received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as well as the articles. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been handed over to her in Court today.

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

10. Although the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers, 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.

11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Supreme Court 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 acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of seri