Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 5, 2025
ASHISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Neeraj, Mr. Dipanshu Meena and Ms. Srutisma Hazarika, Advocates along
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
Ranveer Mavi, PS Sangam Vihar.
Respondent No.2 in person.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 310/2024 dated 01.06.2024, registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, for offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and all proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts are that Respondent No. 2 on the advice of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had purchased a land from Petitioner NO. 1.
3. It is alleged that initially Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 told Respondent No. 2 that the land was in the name of Petitioner NO. 2, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 prepared an agreement to buy the land from Petitioner No. 2 for an amount of ₹49,30,000/-.
4. It is alleged that thereafter, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 told Respondent No. 2 that the land belonged to Petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 paid a sum of ₹36,80,000/- in cash to Petitioner No. 2 and an amount of ₹12,50,000/- was deposited by Respondent No. 2 in the bank account of Petitioner No. 1.
5. It is alleged that when Respondent No. 2 was carrying out removal of garbage from the said land, he was informed that the land belonged to someone else. Pursuant to a complaint given by Respondent No. 2 the present FIR was registered.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have entered into a Settlement Deed dated 07.04.2025, out of their own free will and without any force, pressure or coercion.
7. The parties are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
8. On being asked, Respondent No.2 states that he has received the entire settlement amount as per the Settlement Deed dated 07.04.2025 and he has no remaining grievance against the petitioners. He states that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and he has no objection if the same is quashed.
9. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 468/471 of the IPC are noncompoundable.
10. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
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)
11. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis supplied)
12. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
13. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.
14. In view of the above, FIR No. 310/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹25,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of four weeks from date.
15. Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.
16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 5, 2025 / DU