$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7962/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33313/2025, CRL.M.A.

33314/2025 PARVINDER SINGH KAMBOJ & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Nafees Ahmad, Advocates with petitioners in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.

Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026

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. 662/2018, dated 17.12.2018, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 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. Ms. Richa Sharma, 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 parties are present on video conference, and are identified by their learned counsel.

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.

6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 25.10.2015. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 14.05.2017.

One female child was born from the wedlock on 22.12.2016.

7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime against Women Cell, and the same culminated into the impugned FIR, against four accused persons, being her husband, parents-in-law, and her sister-in-law.

8. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against respondent No. 2’s husband and parents-in-law. The sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 was, however, not charge sheeted. I am informed that father-in-law of respondent No. 2 was discharged by the Magistrate’s Court vide order dated 15.04.2024.

9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated

14.01.2025.

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

11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court on 15.04.2025.

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

13. 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 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.

14. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303. has held as follows:

“58.Where the HighCourt quashes a criminal proceedinghavingregard 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 compensat