$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1427/2026 SH. VISHAL & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chanchal Sharma, Advocate with Petitioners in person.

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP with SI Aarti.

R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026

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. 388/2020 dated 24.09.2020, registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt, District South-West, 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. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”], accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 – complainant appears in person, and accepts notice. She states that she does not wish to avail the assistance of counsel.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 23.11.2016.

Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they started living separately on 20.04.2019. Prior to the separation, one child was born from the wedlock on 23.09.2017.

4. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 23.04.2019, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against three accused persons, being her husband and sisters-in-law [petitioners herein]. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Section 498A of the IPC.

5. The parties have since reconciled their differences, as recorded in a Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.11.2025, entered into between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. They have been living together since December 2023, and a second child was born on 17.11.2024, after they resumed cohabitation.

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 the IO.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the settlement, the parties have reconciled and have been living together for the past two years. Respondent No. 2 affirms that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence, and that she has no objection to quashing of the impugned FIR. Learned APP has also interacted with her.

9. Although the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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.

10. 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 com