$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3419/2021 and CRL.M.A. 10248/2022 SMT. PRABHA AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State Mr. Naresh Gupta, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 27.07.2026 1. The petitioners vide the present petition seek for quashing of the FIR No.180/2019 dated 20.08.2019 registered at PS Darya Ganj, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/102B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 860 (IPC). 2. The dispute revolves around the ownership of a property at 98, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The Petitioners claim title through a registered Gift Deed dated 12.06.2017, executed by Smt. Nirmala Devi in their favour, which itself was based on an Agreement to Sell dated 30.12.1982 under which Smt. Nirmala Devi had purchased the property from Sh. Jagdish Rai Seengal and had been in undisputed possession for nearly 35 years. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Kamla Gupta, claims ownership of the same property on the basis of an unregistered and undated "Batware Ka Smaran Patr" (Partition by Memory Letter) and two Wills dated 21.09.1984 and 14.12.1987 executed by her This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:37:25 parents. Despite the police's Action Taken Report concluding the matter to be civil in nature, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging forgery, which led to the registration of FIR No. 180/2019 on 14.08.2019 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC against the Petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, however, points out that after investigation, the charge sheet was filed and vide order dated 01.04.2026, the Court of competent jurisdiction has also taken the cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/102B/34 of the IPC. Summons have already been directed to be issued. The matter is pending before the said Court. 4. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.1, while dealing with a similar question it denied the quashing of FIR on the basis of involvement of forged documents. Para no. 17 of the same is extracted as under: “17. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the FIR would subserve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court 1 (2017) 9 SCC 641 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:37:25 adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code.” 5. In view of the subsequent developments and the nature of the allegations relating to the fabrication of documents, including the unregistered and undated Batware Ka Smaran Patr, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR in question. Further, bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir (Supra) governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, particularly that such powers must be exercised sparingly and with due regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, no case for interference is made out at this stage. 6. It is, however, clarified that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:37:25 all such pleas as may be available to them in law before the Trial Court during the course of the trial. 7. With these observations and liberty, the instant petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 27, 2026 Nc/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:37:25