Charanpreet Singh & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 19 Aug 2025 · 2025:DHC:7037
Ravinder Dudeja
CRL.M.C. 9360/2024
2025:DHC:7037
criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under multiple IPC sections based on a voluntary amicable settlement between parties, emphasizing that continuation of criminal proceedings would be contrary to justice.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 9360/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, CRL.M.C. 9360/2024
SH. CHARANPREET SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Petitioner No. 1 in person.
Petitioner No. 2 through VC.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
….Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP.
SI Harish, PS Paschim Vihar.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 177/2012, dated 16.08.2012, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under Sections 380/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

2. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 alleged that petitioners embezzled funds and forged signatures on documents in order to illegally occupy and claim ownership of his properties in Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He further submits that despite revoking their authority and repeatedly requesting the return of assets, the petitioners continued their unauthorized use and also filed false cases against him, causing financial and mental distress. Chargesheet and charges have since been filed/framed under sections 467/471/120B/380 IPC against the petitioners.

3. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a Family Settlement CUM MOU dated 10.09.2024. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, Petitioner no. 1 shall sell the entire Second Floor with Roof/terrace Right, part of built up property bearing no, 88, situated at Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110063, to intending purchaser or any other person within 4 months from date of execution of the aforesaid settlement and the total settlement amount of the same shall be divided between petitioner no. 1 (40% share) and respondent no. 2 (60% share). It is further submitted that the possession of the aforesaid property shall be handed over to petitioner no. 1 by respondent no. 2 for the purpose of execution of sale and petitioner no. 2 shall be sole and absolute owner of the entire DDA freehold flat bearing no. 80-a, Ground Floor, Category Janta, in Block/Pocket-A-5, situated at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110063. Copy of the Family Settlement CUM MOU dated 10.09.2024 has been annexed as Annexure C.

4. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 are physically present before the Court while petitioner nos. 2 has entered her appearance through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Harish from PS Paschim Vihar.

5. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and he does not wish to pursue the present matter and confirms that has no objection if the FIR No. 177/2012 is quashed against the Petitioners.

6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 177/2012 is quashed.

7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

8. Further, based on the law laid in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the aforesaid FIR will be an exercise in futility.

9. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement out of their own free will, without any fear, force or coercion and they should be given an opportunity to lead their lives peacefully. No purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 177/2012, dated 16.08.2012, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under section 380/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

10. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR NO. 177/2012, dated 16.08.2012, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under section 380/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/- each to be deposited by petitioners in Delhi High Courts Advocate Welfare Funds bearing “Account NO. 15530110179338”, maintained with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch, within a period of one month.

11. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J August 19, 2025