CRL.M.C. 5489/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010344402026 + CRL.M.C. 5489/2026 SOMVEER & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravinder Kr. Bhola, Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate along with SI Shivani, PS BHD Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 22.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 708/2014 dated 11th November, 2014, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Baba Haridass Nagar, Delhi and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2, while Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are her in-laws. Their marriage was solemnised on 27th 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “IPC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:49:04 CRL.M.C. 5489/2026 Page 2 of 4 November, 2010, and a son was born from this marriage on 5th February, 2012. Matrimonial disputes subsequently arose between the parties, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that she had been subjected to cruelty by the Petitioners, culminating in registration of the impugned FIR. 3. The parties state that, during the pendency of the proceedings, they have amicably resolved their matrimonial disputes. In this regard, they participated in mediation proceedings before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, culminating in a Settlement Agreement dated 4th November, 2023, which has been placed on record. The Settlement Agreement records that the parties have been living together since August, 2018 and have settled their disputes voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. 4. Respondent No. 2 is present before the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence, and states that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She further states that the parties are presently residing together and have recently been blessed with another child. In these circumstances, counsel for the parties jointly pray for quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 5. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 6. it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:49:04 CRL.M.C. 5489/2026 Page 3 of 4 parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 4 (2014) 6 SCC 466 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:49:04 CRL.M.C. 5489/2026 Page 4 of 4 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement and are happily residing together, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 8. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 708/2014 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 9. Parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement. 10. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/ab This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:49:04