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. 746/2016, dated 15.09.2016, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, District West 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. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 appears in person and declines the assistance of counsel.

3. 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 also identified by the IO.

4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

5. The impugned FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 are the family members of petitioner No.1.

6. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married on 26.04.2010. No child was born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences between the parties, they have been living separately since 14.09.2016.

7. Respondent No. 2 lodged a formal complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, on 20.05.2016, alleging physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon her by petitioner No. 1 and his family members on account of dowry demands, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was registered on 15.09.2016.

8. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 09.02.2018.

9. The parties have settled all their disputes under the aegis of the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by way of a settlement dated 16.01.2018. The parties agreed to a full and final settlement of Rs. 3,50,000 payable by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in three installments.

10. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1’s father, Mohd. Yusuf (accused No. 3 in the chargesheet), passed away on 25.11.2020. A copy of his death certificate has been placed on record.

11. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage has been dissolved by a pronouncement of divorce, as per the procedure of Muslim Law, in 2018.

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

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

14. 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.

15. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹(2012) 10 SCC 303. has 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 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 compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permissi