W.P.(CRL) 2869/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010440952026 + W.P.(CRL) 2869/2026 PRADEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given by counsel. Petitioner (in-Person). versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yudhvir Chauhan, Mr. Abhinav Kumar and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates for State. Mr. M.L. Sahu, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 (in-Person). 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. 1062/2014 dated 26th December, 2014 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Frash Bajar, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, while Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are his family members. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were married on 12th December, 2008 according to Hindu rites and customs. No child was born from the marriage. Owing to 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 05/10/2026 at 11:35:53 W.P.(CRL) 2869/2026 Page 2 of 4 matrimonial differences, the parties started residing separately from 31st July, 2013. Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged a complaint alleging cruelty, dowry-related harassment and misappropriation of her stridhan, leading to registration of the impugned FIR. 3. During the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings, the parties were referred to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, where they amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a settlement dated 25th November, 2017, a copy whereof has been placed on record. Under the settlement, Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay Respondent No. 2 a sum of INR 2,75,000/- towards full and final settlement of all her claims. The parties further agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and not to raise any claim or institute any proceedings against each other arising out of the marriage. In furtherance of the settlement, their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 16th September, 2019. On the strength of the said settlement, the parties have now approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 4. Respondent No. 2, who appears before the Court in person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms the settlement and gives her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She confirms that, in terms of the settlement, she has already received a sum of INR 1,85,000/- out of the total settled amount of INR 2,75,000/-. The balance amount of INR 90,000/- has been tendered to Respondent No. 2 during the course of hearing by way of a demand draft, which has been duly received and acknowledged by her. The Petitioners are also present in Court and have 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 11:35:53 W.P.(CRL) 2869/2026 Page 3 of 4 been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR. 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 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. 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 11:35:53 W.P.(CRL) 2869/2026 Page 4 of 4 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] 7. Considering the nature of 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. 8. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 1062/2014 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 9. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 10. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 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 05/10/2026 at 11:35:53