CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 $~19 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010608982025 + CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25185/2025 DEVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Mr. Kaibalya Kumar Ojha & Ms. Dhruvi Sharma, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Rajak Ahamed, PS C.R. Park. Mr. Arun Vohra & Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advocates for R-2 & 3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 09.09.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 218/2003, dated 18.09.2003, registered at P.S. C.R. Park, New Delhi, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Arun Vohra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The petitioner is present in Court and is identified by his learned 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43 CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 3 herein, who alleged that, in July, 2003, the petitioner, a property dealer/broker, approached him with a proposal for purchase of the second floor of property bearing No. E-59, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi, and introduced one Harvinder Singh Kohli as its owner. It was alleged that both accused, in conspiracy with each other, induced respondent No. 3 to enter into an Advance Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 14.08.2003 and received a sum of Rs. 35,00,000 from him, with the petitioner signing as a witness. Respondent No. 3 further alleged that, shortly thereafter, construction at the property was stopped and the builder informed him that the title documents shown by Harvinder Singh Kohli were forged. It was further alleged that Harvinder Singh Kohli had fraudulently forged the title documents after the death of the original owner and, in conspiracy with the petitioner, used the same as genuine to induce respondent No. 3 to part with Rs. 35,00,000, thereby causing him wrongful loss. 5. Charges were framed by the learned Magistrate on 11.11.2014, whereby a charge under Section 120-B IPC was framed against the present petitioner. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, co-accused Harvinder Singh Kohli passed away on 01.05.2025 and, consequently, the proceedings against him stand abated. The Death Certificate has been annexed to the petition. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43 CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 7. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement, which was reduced into writing by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.06.2025 [“MoU”]. Under the said settlement, the parties unconditionally agreed to settle all their disputes and withdraw all cases against each other, without any monetary consideration. The parties have confirmed that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are present in Court, have also confirmed that they have no surviving grievance against the petitioner. 8. It is noted that although the allegation of forgery relates to the title documents of the property, the beneficiary of the alleged forgery was Harvinder Singh Kohli, who has since passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. Mr. Vohra, therefore, submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to proceed with the present case, although the settlement does not contemplate any monetary compensation, and that the complainants are satisfied with the terms of the settlement. Mr. Chauhan also confirms that the allegation of forgery was against the principal accused, who has since passed away. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the parties jointly seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 10. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS, can quash criminal proceedings, even in respect of non- compoundable offences, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise, particularly where no overriding public interest is adversely affected. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43 CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, which held as follows: “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and- fast category can be prescribed.”2 Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2Emphasis supplied. 3(2014) 6 SCC 466. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43 CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 The relevant observations in the said decision read as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”4 11. The dispute arises from a private property transaction and, in 4Emphasis supplied. 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43 CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 substance, concerns a financial dispute between the parties. Although the allegations include cheating and forgery, the principal allegations concerning the forged title documents were directed against co-accused Harvinder Singh Kohli, who has since passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. The present petitioner is stated to have acted as a witness to the agreement and was proceeded against for the alleged offence of criminal conspiracy. There is no allegation of any continuing criminal conduct on the part of the petitioner or any element of the dispute having an overriding bearing on public interest. 12. Significantly, the impugned FIR dates back to the year 2003 and more than two decades have elapsed since the alleged transaction. During this considerable period, the parties have chosen to amicably resolve their disputes and, pursuant to the MoU, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have unequivocally stated before this Court that they have no surviving grievance against the petitioner and do not wish to pursue the proceedings. 13. Thus, having regard to the nature and age of the dispute, and the voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties, the substratum of the dispute no longer survives. In these circumstances, the possibility of the proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote and bleak. Continuation of the proceedings, after more than two decades and despite the parties having unequivocally resolved their dispute, would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to an unnecessary perpetuation of criminal proceedings. Such continuation would also subject the parties to further litigation and consume valuable judicial time and public resources. The ends of justice would, therefore, be served by bringing 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43 CRL.M.C. 5903/2025 proceedings to an end. 14. Having regard to the above, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 218/2003, dated 18.09.2003, registered at P.S. C.R. Park, New Delhi, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B/34 IPC, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 15. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 16. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 ‘pv’/SD/ 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 14/09/2026 at 16:04:43