CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~96-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21576/2026 SH SHARAD AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manohar Malik, Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advs. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP SI Bhram Parkash Mr.Devashish Bhadauria, Adv. for R2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. The petitioners have approached this Court 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. 144/2026, dated 22.06.2026, registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [“BNS”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Devashish Bhadauria, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2- complainant. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:26 CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 Page 2 of 6 3. The petitioners are present in person and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and has been identified by his learned counsel and the IO. 4. The impugned FIR was lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, where respondent No. 2 alleged that he entered into an Agreement to Sell and an Agreement for Construction on 18.03.2025 with late Satish Kumar Aggarwal for purchase of the second floor of property No. A-211, Defence Colony, and paid Rs. 90 lakhs as advance. After Satish Kumar Aggarwal's death, the petitioners allegedly inherited the property, unlawfully terminated the agreements, misrepresented the contractual timelines, and retained Rs. 55 lakhs paid in cash while refunding only the banked amount. 5. Chargesheet has not yet been filed in the present proceedings. 6. The parties have since settled their disputes amicably, as recorded in a Memorandum of Settlement dated 13.07.2026, towards full and final settlement of all claims. It is pertinent to note that the settlement was arrived at within one month of the registration of the impugned FIR. The settlement contemplates a payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 as a one-time settlement. 7. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2 states before the Court that he has received the entire amount as contemplated in the settlement. 8. I am also informed that civil proceedings [CS(OS) 506/2026 and CS(COMM) 652/2026] between the parties before this Court have been 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:26 CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 Page 3 of 6 decreed in terms of the aforesaid settlement, vide order dated 16.07.2026. The said order is handed up in Court, and is taken on record. 9. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 10. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to 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. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:26 CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 Page 4 of 6 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. 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 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:26 CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 Page 5 of 6 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 present dispute arises out of two interrelated agreements, i.e. the Construction/Collaboration Agreement and the Agreement to Sell, and its termination thereof. The dispute has since been amicably resolved between the parties within one month of the registration of the FIR. The dispute, in substance, bears a predominantly civil and financial character, without any discernible element of public interest or grave criminality. The civil proceedings between the parties pending before this Court have also since been decreed in terms of the settlement. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed the receipt of the entire settlement amount and the voluntary nature of the compromise, and there appears to be no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Continuation of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would, therefore, amount to an unnecessary burden on judicial resources and would defeat the ends of 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:26 CRL.M.C. 5141/2026 Page 6 of 6 justice. 12. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 144/2026 dated 22.06.2026, registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of the BNS, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 13. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 14. The petition along with pending applications, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 23, 2026 Tg/AD/ 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 27/07/2026 at 15:09:26