Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th July, 2026
REENA KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Mr. Samarth Chowdhary, Mr. Lakshyaa, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Mr. Sangeet Sibour, Advocate with SI
Ashok.
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Advocate for complainant.
REENA KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP with SI Ashok.
RAMESH KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner
Ashok.
DINESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners seek early hearing.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the date is preponed and, since the parties are present today, the matter has been taken up today itself.
3. The next date of 28.10.2026 stands cancelled.
4. Petitioners are accused in case FIR bearing No. 89/2026, registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, District Shahdara, Delhi, for offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Apart from seeking anticipatory bail, they also seek quashing of the abovesaid FIR.
6. It will, however, be worthwhile to mention here that when the petitions were earlier taken up on 29.05.2020, since the parties had expressed their willingness to settle the matter amicably, they were referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the case was fixed for awaiting W.P.(CRL) 941/2026 and other connected matters 3 the outcome of such mediation process.
7. It has now been informed that the matter has been amicably settled and reference is made to the Mediation Order dated 01.07.2026.
8. All the concerned accused persons (petitioners herein) and complainant-Dr. Meera Verma, are signatories to such settlement.
9. Petitioners Ms. Reena Kumar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar are present in Court, whereas third petitioner i.e. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jain has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing. He is stated to be an octogenarian.
10. Complainant-Dr. Meera Verma is present with her husband and counsel and, when asked, all the sides reiterated the fact that the matter has been amicably settled. She has been duly identified by her counsel as well as I.O.
11. Learned counsel for complainant-Meera Verma submits that, since the matter has been amicably settled and the complainant has already received the entire amount in terms of the abovesaid mediation order, she would not have any objection, either to the grant of bail to the petitioners or, for that matter, to the other prayer of quashing of FIR.
12. The quashing petition is for the reason that no offence is made out and the transaction in question is civil in nature.
13. Fact, however, remains that, in view of the abovesaid subsequent development, the petitioners pray that the present petition may be deemed to be a petition seeking quashing of FIR, based on settlement.
14. Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to the abovesaid request.
15. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate order in this regard. W.P.(CRL) 941/2026 and other connected matters 4
16. The Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the terms of the Mediation order dated 01.07.2026.
17. The FIR was in relation to some dispute which arose between the parties with respect to the sale of two plots situated at Shakti Enclave, near Kalindi Colony, Village Kirlokari, New Delhi. As per the averments appearing in the FIR, complainant was lured to buy two plots in question and she paid a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- to the accused persons and since nothing was done by the accused, she reported the matter to Police, claiming that the intention of the accused persons was mala fide and they had taken the abovesaid money in terms of a pre-planned conspiracy.
18. Complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled and she has already received back a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- and, therefore, she is left with no grievance of any nature whatsoever with respect to the averments made by her in her FIR and would have no objection, if FIR in question is quashed.
19. The matter is still under investigation and the chargesheet has yet not been filed.
20. Complainant also states that since she has already got back her amount, she is left with no right, title or interest with respect to the plots in question, either.
21. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and nature of allegations, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable in nature.
22. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed W.P.(CRL) 941/2026 and other connected matters 5 appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
23. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR bearing No. 89/2026, registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, District Shahdara, Delhi, for offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed subject to petitioners depositing cost of Rs. 30,000/-, in the account of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within two weeks.
24. Proof of deposit and original affidavits be handed over to the concerned SHO/IO within further period of two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during investigation, certain original documents were handed over to the Investigating Agency and these may be directed to be returned. Complainant has no objection to the abovesaid request. Even otherwise, since the FIR has been quashed, no purpose would be served by retaining those documents. Let the documents be returned.
25. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
26. Pending application also stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 2098/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 2129/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 2151/2026 Since the FIR in question has been quashed, all the three applications have become infructuous and stand dismissed, accordingly.
JUDGE JULY 30, 2026/sw/pb