CRL.M.C. 6195/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010393402026 + CRL.M.C. 6195/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25864/2026 AMAN SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhay Singh, Ms. Ankita Agarwal and Mr. Jishnu Adhikari, Advocates with Petitioners present. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate for State. Respondent No. 2 (in-Person). 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. 248/2025 dated 22nd April, 2025 , registered under Sections 498A/406/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Kalkaji and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the former husband of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, while Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are her in-laws. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were married on 6th February, 2023, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to matrimonial differences, they separated on 12th October, 2023. Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged a 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 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 10:43:51 CRL.M.C. 6195/2026 Page 2 of 5 complaint alleging cruelty, dowry harassment and misappropriation of stridhan by the Petitioners. She further alleged that Petitioner No. 5 had made inappropriate advances towards her and touched her inappropriately, giving rise to the allegation under Section 354 of IPC. Consequently, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3. The parties state that they have amicably resolved their matrimonial disputes and agreed to part ways by mutual consent. In furtherance thereof, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 filed HMA No. 327/2026 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Gwalior. Their statements were recorded on 13th March, 2026, wherein Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay Respondent No. 2 a sum of INR 6,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, of which INR 3,00,000/- was paid on the said date. The parties further agreed to resolve the pending proceedings between them by mutual consent and not to pursue any civil or criminal proceedings against each other. They also affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and without any fear or coercion. 4. The first motion was allowed by the Family Court on 13th March, 2026. Thereafter, by decree dated 11th September, 2026, the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was dissolved by mutual consent. 5. Respondent No. 2 is present before the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms that the settlement was arrived at voluntarily, without any force, coercion or undue influence, and that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect has also been placed on record. She further confirms that the 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 10:43:51 CRL.M.C. 6195/2026 Page 3 of 5 balance amount of INR 3,00,000/- was received by her at the time of the second motion. In view of the above, counsel for the parties jointly pray that the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, the offence under Section 498A and 354 of IPC are non-compoundable, while the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 7. 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 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 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 10:43:51 CRL.M.C. 6195/2026 Page 4 of 5 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. 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] 8. Although the offences under Sections 498A and 354 of IPC cannot be regarded as purely private in nature and involve concerns extending beyond the parties themselves, the Court must, at the same time, account for the practical realities of the case, the context in which the allegations arose, and the subsequent developments between the parties. In the present case, the allegations emanate from a matrimonial dispute which has since been comprehensively resolved. Respondent No. 2 has confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, that she has received the entire amount agreed thereunder, and that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. The marriage also stands dissolved by mutual consent. In these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only perpetuate a dispute which has otherwise been 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 10:43:51 CRL.M.C. 6195/2026 Page 5 of 5 brought to an end. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the present case warrants exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. 9. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 248/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 10. Parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement. 11. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/as 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 10:43:51