CRL.M.C. 5876/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5876/2025 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Tejveer Singh Bhatia and Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocates versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms.Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State alongwith Insp. Sumit Kumar, P.S.- IGI Airport Mr.Sandeep Phogat and Ms.Mamta Rana, Advocates for R-2 (VC) Respondent no.2/Complainant in- person (VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 25.08.2025 CRL.M.A. 25084/2025 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5876/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25083/2025 (Stay) 1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No.196/2019dated 14.05.2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station IGI Airport, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise between the parties. 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 08/09/2025 at 12:30:30 CRL.M.C. 5876/2025 Page 2 of 4 2. Complainant of the FIR joins the proceedings in person through VC. It is now stated that FIR in question was a result of misunderstanding between the parties. What led to the FIR was that the complainant authorized Deep Blue Xpress Pvt. Ltd., of which Petitioners Manoj Jain are MD and Director, to collect imported consignments from FedEx and DHL, which were not delivered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have now amicably settled the matter vide MOU/ Settlement Deed dated 28.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in view of the compromise between the parties and as Respondent no. 2 is not inclined to press charges, the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. He also urges that since the charges have not yet been framed and no charge sheet has been filed, it would be in the interest of justice to bring the dispute between the parties to a quietus. 5. Respondent No.2/complainant, upon a query, candidly submits that he is duly authorized on behalf of the company-complainant to state that no charges are being pressed against the petitioners. He further submits that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any duress or coercion. The settlement amount has been received in full and nothing remains payable. 6. In response to a Court query, both the counsel for Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for the State concur with the factum of the compromisebetween the parties and convey their no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the case file. 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 08/09/2025 at 12:30:30 CRL.M.C. 5876/2025 Page 3 of 4 8. It transpires that the petitioners and the complainant company have had commercial transactions with each other in past also. 9. The commercial transaction which resulted in the FIR seems to be rather a case of certain professional deficiency and not deliberate attempt of cheating or forgery. The same is also duly admitted by the informer/complainant who states that at the relevant time the FIR arose out of complete misunderstanding on the part of both the parties. 10. Having interacted with the complainant and considering the nature of the dispute, it appears to be private and civil, arising from a financial transaction, and lacking any public or societal interest. 11. The matter, which seems to have arisen from misunderstandings between the parties, has been amicably resolved. Continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, constitute an abuse of the process of law, and place unnecessary burden on the judicial system/prosecution. Quashing the FIR in question would rather promote peace and harmony between the parties, particularly as the complainant does not wish to pursue the case further. 12. Accordingly, invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR in question. Reference in this context may also be had to judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. 13. The instant petition is thus allowed. The criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.196/2019 dated 14.05.2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station IGI Airport, and further proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 14. The petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands 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 08/09/2025 at 12:30:30 CRL.M.C. 5876/2025 Page 4 of 4 disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J AUGUST 25, 2025 dy 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 08/09/2025 at 12:30:30