CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~77 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 & CRL.M.A. 18980/2026 SHRI BHUPENDER CHAND & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aakash Dahiya, Advocate Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. SI Chetan Panwar. Ms. Yamini Sharma, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"]), seeking quashing of FIR No. 469/2024, dated 11.12.2024, registered at Police Station Chhawala, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”], and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Yamini Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 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 08/07/2026 at 11:45:57 CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 Page 2 of 6 3. The petitioners are present on video conference and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present through video conference and is identified by the learned counsel and the IO. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. The allegations, as emerging therefrom, are that the petitioners requested respondent No. 2 to advance a loan of Rs.60,00,000/- for business needs with assurance of repayment in 15 months, a surety of mortgage of their land which petitioner No.1 claimed to be the owner of and a Memorandum of Understanding. The petitioners however did not pay back the loan amount within the said period, and instead asked for an additional loan of Rs.20,00,000/-, assuring that the said total amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- shall be paid back by them within six months. Relying upon this assurance, respondent No.2 further advanced a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the petitioners. However, the petitioners were again unable to repay the said amount within the said period. Subsequently, multiple cheques were given by the petitioners in lieu of repayment of the loan amount to respondent No.2, but they were dishonoured upon presentation. The mortgaged property was also in a legal dispute. 5. Thereafter, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide settlement dated 04.08.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2 has also placed on record a no objection affidavit to 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 08/07/2026 at 11:45:57 CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 Page 3 of 6 quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 8. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their extraordinary powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. 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 08/07/2026 at 11:45:57 CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 Page 4 of 6 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. 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 2 Emphasis 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 08/07/2026 at 11:45:57 CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 Page 5 of 6 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 9. The present case arises out of non-payment of a loan. The dispute, though attracting the provisions of Section 420 of the IPC, is essentially of a private and financial nature, and does not involve any element of grave criminality or overriding public interest. As noted above, the said parties have amicably resolved their disputes, and respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 10. The settlement contemplates a payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to respondent No. 2, which has already been received by him. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought. 11. In view thereof, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 469/2024 dated 11.12.2024, registered at Police Station Chhawala, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, alongwith all consequential 4 Emphasis 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 08/07/2026 at 11:45:57 CRL.M.C. 4568/2026 Page 6 of 6 proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 13. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 6, 2026 SS/MK/ 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 08/07/2026 at 11:45:57