$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010468722026 + CRL.M.C. 7307/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30568/2026 GAURAV GROVER & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sarthak Gupta with Mr. Bhavya R. Mr. Ankit Sisodia and Ms. A Tyagi, Advocates. (M): 8585913017 Email: advsarthak10@gmail.com versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State. (M): 9654029294 Email: advocatekiranbairwa@gmail.com Ms. Pujya Kr. Singhal, Advocate with respondent no. 2 along with her father in person. (M): 9868759344 SI Rajesh Kumar with SI Priya. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 975/2015, dated 11th October, 2015, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Vikaspuri, West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Issue notice. 3. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2, i.e., the complainant. 4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 5. The impugned FIR came to be filed on 11th October, 2015, pursuant to a complaint by respondent no. 2 to the Women Crime Branch, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Subsequently, a Chargesheet came to be filed against the petitioners under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC. 6. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 got married on 21st February, 2015, however, they have been living separately since 2015 and there are no children born out of the said wedlock. The parties had arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”)/Settlement Agreement dated 18th August, 2020 for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent for a sum of Rs. 08 Lacs to be paid by petitioner no. 1 to respondent no. 2. 7. However, due to some unforeseen reasons the terms and conditions of the said MoU/Settlement Agreement could not be fulfilled and the said settlement turned bad. 8. During the pendency of the impugned FIR, the parties amicably settled all their disputes vide MoU/Settlement Agreement dated 08th April, 2026, whereby, the earlier MoU/Settlement dated 18th August, 2020 was declared as null and void. 9. Vide the said MoU/Settlement Agreement dated 08th April, 2026, the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent and cooperate in quashing of the impugned FIR. 10. The parties are present in Court, and are identified by their respective learned counsels. 11. Respondent no. 2, who is present in Court, is also identified by the Investigating Officer (“IO”), who is present in Court. 12. This Court is informed that the divorce between the parties has already taken place on 14th July, 2026. 13. In terms of the MoU/Settlement Agreement dated 08th April, 2026 between the parties, a sum of Rs. 03 Lacs is due and payable to respondent no. 2 by petitioner no. 1, at the time of listing of the present petition. 14. A Draft of Rs. 03 Lacs has been duly handed over to respondent no. 2, who is present in Court along with her father. 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that they have no objection if the present petition is allowed. 16. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 2, who is present in Court, and who submits that she has no objection if the present petition is allowed as she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. 17. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 18. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that the matter has been finally settled between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. 19. In respect of the offences in impugned FIR, this Court notes that the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non-compoundable. 20. The Supreme Court has held that under Section 528 of the BNSS, High Courts may quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, if the concerned parties have arrived at a compromise or settlement, and particularly when no overarching public interest is adversely affected by quashing the same. 21. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court has held that the High Courts are empowered to quash an FIR in case of matrimonial disputes in order to foster genuine settlements, even when the offences involved are non-compoundable in nature. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 22. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the FIR No. 975/2015, dated 11th October, 2015, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Vikaspuri, West, Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is accordingly quashed. 23. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. 24. Pending application also stands disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 c Page 2 of 2