$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9157/2025 MANISH BANSAL AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Samiksha Garg, Advocate.

versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate for R-2.

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. 779/2018 dated 22.12.2018, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, 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. Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, 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 was 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. Petitioner No.3 is the brother of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1.

6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 28.11.2003. One child was born from the marriage on 02.04.2005, who has attained majority. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they were living separately since September 2018.

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, mother-in-law, brother-

in-law and sister-in-law.

8. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.02.2024, which contemplated the parties obtaining divorce by mutual consent. The settlement further contemplated payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 and handing over the physical possession of an immovable property by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1.

9. Consequently, the settlement amount was paid to respondent No. 2, and the first motion was filed by the parties, which was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 24.04.2024. However, during pendency of these proceedings, the parties entered into another Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.05.2025, which states that the parties have since reconciled and are living together with their child.

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

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

12. 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.

13. 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 wron