$~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 704/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6518/2023 PAWAN KUMAR TANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Jain, Mr. Prashant, Mr. Shivashish Karnaniand Mr. Piyush Saini, Advs. versus THE STATE THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC. SI Deepak Patwal, PS Janakpuri. SI Ravi Narwal, PS Rajouri Garden. Mr. Rajeev Sagar and Ms. Tanisha Arora, Advs. for respondent no. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 40/2017 registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) at Police Station Janak Puri, Delhi, along with the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of the subsequent settlement arrived at between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 - Bank. 3. The petitioner and the authorised representative of Respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been duly identified by the concerned 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 24/07/2026 at 12:43:28 Investigating Officer (IO). 4. Learned APP for the State submits that Clause VI of the settlement letter dated 23.07.2021 stipulates that the criminal/external investigation and charges filed by the Bank shall continue as per law and, therefore, the Bank would not withdraw the criminal case. It is, however, submitted that if the parties have settled the dispute, the State has no objection if appropriate orders are passed by this Court in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 submits that Respondent No. 2 has received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner towards the One Time Settlement (OTS) and this Court may pass appropriate judicial orders. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have entered into a OTS dated 23.07.2021, whereunder the Bank agreed to accept a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of its dues. It is also not disputed that Respondent No. 2 has received the entire settlement amount in terms thereof. The only issue which arises for consideration is the effect of Clause VI of the settlement letter, which provides that the criminal/external investigation and charges filed by the Bank shall continue as per law. 8. In the opinion of this Court, Clause VI merely stipulates that the criminal/external investigation and the charges filed by the Bank shall continue in accordance with law. The said stipulation cannot be construed as restricting the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC to examine whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 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 24/07/2026 at 12:43:28 9. In K. Bharathi Devi v. State of Telangana, (2024) 10 SCC 384, the Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is required to consider the nature of the dispute, the effect of the subsequent settlement and whether continuation of the prosecution would serve any useful purpose. On the facts of that case, criminal proceedings arising out of a banking transaction settled under a One Time Settlement were quashed. 10. In the present case, the genesis of the dispute is a loan transaction between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has accepted the entire settlement amount under the OTS and has fairly submitted before this Court that appropriate judicial orders may be passed. The State has also stated that apart from Clause VI of the settlement letter, it has no objection if appropriate orders are passed in accordance with law. 11. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the subsequent settlement between the parties, the receipt of the entire settlement amount by Respondent No. 2 and the stand taken by the Bank before this Court, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The genesis of the criminal proceedings lies in a financial transaction between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, which now stands settled. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the present case warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC. 12. Accordingly, FIR No.40/2017 registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Janak Puri, Delhi, along with the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and all proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 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 24/07/2026 at 12:43:28 13. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 22, 2026/b/m 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 24/07/2026 at 12:43:28