$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11^th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 8835/2025 VIJAY PAL NEGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.

Petitioner in person versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State SI Karan, PS- Saket R2 in person CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 86/2020 dated 05.03.2020, registered at Police Station Saket, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. It is averred that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was solemnized on 14.07.2002, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties due to which the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 started living separately.

3. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by him, which later culminated into the present FIR.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi on 20.02.2025, out of their own free will, without any force, pressure, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have also obtained a decree of divorce and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

5. The parties are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

6. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court states that all the disputes have since been resolved. She submits that the parties have already obtained divorce and she has no remaining grievance against the Petitioner.

7. She states that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same are quashed.

8. Offence under Sections 406 of the IPC is compoundable whereas the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non-

compoundable.

9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings.

In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2.When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is