$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010462612026 + CRL.M.C. 7227/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30183/2026 KAMLESH KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Munna Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Vishnu Deo Yadav, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. W.S.I. Jyoti and H.C. Priyanka, P.S. Kanjhawala. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] seeks quashing of FIR No. 536/2023 dated 20th December, 2023, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] at P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband while Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 31st May, 2022, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have no child from the marriage. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, the relationship 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 01/10/2026 at 11:18:30 between the parties deteriorated and they started living separately. 3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners, alleging that she was subject to cruelty, which later culminated into the subject FIR. Pursuant to investigation, a chargesheet was filed under the same sections. 4. The parties, of their own free will and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence, have amicably resolved their dispute. The Parties have executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11th February, 2026, whereby Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a total sum of INR 4,75,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of her claims. The parties have agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various fora. Pursuant to the settlement, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 15th July, 2026, passed by the Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi. 5. Respondent No. 2, who appears before the Court in person and is duly identified by the IO, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. She further states that she has no further grievance against the Petitioners. She confirms that, in terms of the Settlement Agreement, the full and final payment has already been made. In view of the settlement, the parties jointly pray for quashing of the FIR. 6. The Court has considered the aforesaid facts and submissions. Notably, the offence under Sections 498A is non-compoundable, while the offence under Sections 406 is compoundable in certain cases. 7. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 BNSS] to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 CrPC. This 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 01/10/2026 at 11:18:30 power may be exercised even in cases involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled the matter. However, the power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, the Supreme Court held that criminal cases having an overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial relationships or family disputes, stand on a distinct footing where the parties have resolved their entire disputes. The Court further held that, in such cases, the High Court may quash the proceedings where, having regard to the settlement, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. These principles have similarly been reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr2. 8. Considering the nature of the dispute, the amicable settlement between the parties, the fact that the settlement has been acted upon and the subsequent dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Accordingly, FIR No. 536/2023 dated 20th December, 2023, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC at P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 1 (2014) 6 SCC 466. 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641. 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 01/10/2026 at 11:18:30 10. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 11. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/hc 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 01/10/2026 at 11:18:30