$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 658/2026 PIYUSH AGRAWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Tejaswini Verma & Mr.

Abhay Singh, Advocates [M:-

9810199649] alongwith Petitioners in Person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) for State.

SI Pushpa Punia, PS Bindapur.

Ms. Ayushi Mishra & Mr. Shivam Kumar Rai, Advocates for R-2, with R-2 on VC.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 24.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 6137/2026 (exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 658/2026

1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of FIR No. 325/2025 dated 15.05.2025, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, District Dwarka, 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 (Criminal), accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Ayushi Mishra, 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 impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No. 1.

5. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 23.02.2023 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 26.02.2024. No child was born from the wedlock.

6. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, P.S. Dabri, District West, Delhi, on 15.10.2024, against her husband and his family, i.e., the petitioners herein, alleging mental and physical cruelty inflicted upon her on demands of dowry. Based upon the said complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered on 15.05.2025.

No chargesheet has been filed till date.

7. The parties have entered into a settlement under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 27.05.2025, whereby they have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and resolve all pending disputes arising out of matrimonial proceedings and FIR No. 325/2025. Under the settlement, petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 in three instalments, alongwith exchange/return of jewellery and articles, in full and final settlement of all claims towards stridhan, maintenance and alimony.

8. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, District South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, on 20.11.2025 [in HMA No. 3487/2025].

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

10. 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 present on video conference, and is identified by Ms.

Mishra and the IO.

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

12. Although an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is ordinarily non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where a mutual compromise has been amicably arrived at between the parties, particularly when such quashing does not impinge upon any overriding public interest.

13. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard

to the fact th