CRL.M.C. 7249/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010464292026 + CRL.M.C. 7249/2026, CRL.M.A. 30316/2026 SUNIL RAWAT AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Ishwar Singh, Advocates. versus STATE OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Ankit Sharma and Insp. Rishibesh Mena, PS-Fatehpur Beri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. This petition filed 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. 0365/2022 dated 29th August, 2022, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Fatehpur Beri, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are the in- laws of Respondent No. 2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 16th February, 2008, as per Hindu rites 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:17 CRL.M.C. 7249/2026 Page 2 of 5 and ceremonies. The parties have a child from the said marriage. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, disputes arose between the parties, resulting in their separation. 3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging dowry demands and harassment by Petitioner No. 1 and his family members before the CAW Cell, Saket. Pursuant thereto, the impugned FIR was registered on 29th August, 2022. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed with an additional charge of Section 506 IPC against the Petitioners. The proceedings emanating therefrom are pending before the concerned Trial Court in State v. Sunil Rawat & Ors., Criminal Case No. 6327/2025. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial disputes and differences. In terms of the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of INR 2,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of her claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship, including maintenance, permanent alimony, stridhan and dowry articles. The said amount is stated to have been paid to Respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 17th February, 2026, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in HMA Petition No. 2249/2025. The parties have thereafter executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 8th September, 2026, recording their agreement to seek quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. 5. Respondent No. 2, who appears before the Court in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and states 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:17 CRL.M.C. 7249/2026 Page 3 of 5 that the same has been entered into voluntarily, without any force, coercion or undue influence. She confirms that she has received the settled amount towards full and final settlement of her claims and has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings. In view of the settlement, counsel for the parties jointly pray for quashing of the impugned FIR. 6. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. The offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non-compoundable, whereas the offences under Sections 406 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, with the offence under Section 406 requiring the permission of the Court. 7. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read 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 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:17 CRL.M.C. 7249/2026 Page 4 of 5 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. 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.” 8. Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, 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. 9. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 0365/2022 and all 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:17 CRL.M.C. 7249/2026 Page 5 of 5 consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 10. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 11. For abundant caution, it is clarified that the settlement between the parties shall not affect the rights of the minor child, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganesh v. Sudhi Kumar Shrivastava5. 12. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 nk 5 (2020) 20 SCC 787 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:17