$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1252/2021, CRL.M.A. 10595/2021 (stay) ADITYA BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Lakra and Ms. Kashish G. Baweja, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar and Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocates for the State with SI Hanisha, CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 23.01.2025 W.P.(CRL) 1252/2021 1. The Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, for quashing of FIR No. 116/2018 under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh District West, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant submits that though admittedly, the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 30.05.2019 under which he had accepted Rs.1,10,140/- as the Settlement amount and also agreed for quashing of the 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 27/01/2025 at 12:40:51 FIR but there are serious allegations of forgery and impersonation and therefore, the Respondent No. 2 is no longer inclined for abiding by the terms of the Settlement dated 30.05.2019. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that after having entered into a compromise voluntarily and taking Rs.1,10,140/- under the Settlement, the Respondent No. 2 cannot deny the execution of the Settlement of the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 4. Submissions heard and the record perused. 5. Essentially, the allegations are that the Respondent No. 2 had taken the Insurance Policy from the Petitioner, which after maturity was re- invested allegedly by forging his signatures, which became a point of contention with the Respondent No. 2 and consequently, the said FIR was registered. Though under the Settlement, the matter got settled and he got the amount which has been invested by him, but he feels that there are serious allegations of Section 468 IPC. 6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the Petition is hereby dismissed. However, the Respondent No. 2 is directed to return the amount accepted by him under the Settlement within 15 days. 7. The Petition stands disposed of along with the pending Application. 8. The Investigations which were stayed herein, be continued. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JANUARY 23, 2025/RS 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 27/01/2025 at 12:40:51