W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 $~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010285672026 + MONU & ORS. .....Petitioners W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 Through: Mr. Himanshu Jawa, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC along with ASI Subhash Borkar, PS Sultan Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral.) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.0057/2024, dated 10.01.2024, registered at PS Nihal Vihar, Outer District (Delhi), under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of the Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into among the parties on 05.02.2026. 2. At the outset, it is clarified that although the petition is titled as a Criminal Writ Petition, it has been treated as a Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 3. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is the husband of respondent no.2/complainant, and the remaining petitioners,i.e., petitioner nos.2 to 7, are mother-in-law, jeth, sister-in-law, sister-in-law, husband’s uncle, and Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 husband’s foofa, respectively. 4. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 took place on 06.07.2014 at Bahadurgarh, Haryana. It is submitted that no child was born out of the said wedlock. It is also submitted that the parties have settled their disputes in terms of Compromise Deed/MOU dated 05.02.2026. The copy of the Compromise Deed/MOU has been annexed as Annexure-B to the petition.The said MOU reads as under: Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 5. In terms of the aforesaid Compromise Deed/MOU, respondent no. 2/complainant is to receive a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in three instalments: a. Rs. 2,00,000/- as first instalment at the time of first motion, b. Rs. 11,00,000/- as second instalment thereafter, and c. Rs. 2,00,000/- as third instalment at the time of second motion. 6. It is submitted by the parties that divorce proceedings in HMA No. 104/2026 have culminated in a decree of divorce. The complainant/respondent no.2 confirms the receipt of the settlement amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 7. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.2 have been identified by the Investigation Officer (ASI Subhash Borkar), who is present in Court. 8. The complainant/respondent no.2 submits that she has entered into the aforesaid Compromise Deed/MOU of her own free will and volition, without any coercion or undue influence. 9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the fact that the entire settlement amount has been received by the complainant/respondent no.2 and the marriage has already been dissolved by way of the divorce decree, there is no impediment in allowing the present petition. 10. While discussing the inherent power of the High Court to quash non-compoundable offences under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”), the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 made the following observations: “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated (emphasis supplied) . The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” 11. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1680, while hearing an appeal against an order under section 482 of CrPC qua the settlement-based quashing of proceedings under sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, observed as under: “14. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law (emphasis supplied) . The reasoning adopted therein applies with equal force to the facts of the present case.” Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1945/2026 12. Accordingly, considered the joint request of the parties and considering the dicta laid down in Gian Singh (Supra) and Navneesh Aggarwal (Supra), the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 0057/2024, dated 10.01.2024, registered at PS Nihal Vihar, Outer District (Delhi), together with all consequential proceedings, is quashed. 13. Parties undertake to abide by the terms of the aforesaidCompromise Deed/MOU. 14. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 6, 2026/at/vk By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:07.10.2026 15:05:32