$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6252/2025 JAGVINDER SINGH KUSHAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ratton K. Mishra and Mr.

Deepanshu Baliwal, Advocates for Petitioners.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with ASI Sunita, SI Preetam, P.S.

Mohan Garden.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 20.02.2026

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. 35/2024 dated 31.01.2024, registered at Police Station Mohan Garden, District Dwarka, 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. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 –

complainant is present in person, and accepts notice.

3. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 10.11.2022. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they had started living separately from 17.03.2023.

4. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell on 24.05.2023, which culminated into the impugned FIR, against four accused persons, being her husband, parents-in-law, and sister-in-law [petitioners herein]. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 498A/406/34/354 of the IPC. The father-in-law of respondent No. 2 [petitioner No. 2 herein] was chargesheeted under Section 354.

5. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have since entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 09.05.2025. As per the settlement, the parties agreed to resume cohabitation, and to fulfill their matrimonial obligations.

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

7. Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court, and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are present through video conference. They are identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by the Investigating Officer.

8. Respondent No. 2 has filed her no-objection affidavit before this Court. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any force or coercion, and that they have been living together since approximately two months. Respondent No. 2 further submits that the allegations, including the allegation against her father-in-law [petitioner No. 2 herein] for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, arose out of a misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to pursue the same.

9. Although the offences under Sections 354 and 498A of the IPC are 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. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 ser