CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 $~103-Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010395082026 + CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 VIKAS JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chopra, Mr. Bhuvnesh Chauhan, Mr. Mudit Talesara, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. Insp. Sanesh, PS-CR Park. Mr. Satya Prakash Sharan, Mr. Yash Prakash Sharan, Advocates for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 25.08.2026 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. 175/2023, dated 01.08.2023, registered under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] at Police Station Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. The petitioners are present through video conference and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is present in person, and has been identified by his learned counsel and the IO. 3. The impugned FIR was lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of M/s K.S.N. Buildcon Pvt. 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 31/08/2026 at 10:55:43 CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 Ltd. [“the Company”], and petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, and also a Director in the Company. 4. The facts, as emerging therefrom, are that the complainant, alleges that the directors/shareholders of the Company, induced him to purchase two commercial shops, bearing No. UGF-11 and UGF-12 in the K.S.N. Square project at Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, by making representations regarding the project’s value and clear title. He initially paid about Rs. 40 lakhs [Rs. 20 lakhs per shop] and subsequently paid Rs. 1,79,92,500 towards the purchase, besides approximately Rs. 22 lakhs in related expenses. Registered sale deeds were executed in his favour in February 2018. The complainant later discovered that the shops had already been mortgaged, and possession was taken by C.F.M.A. Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to a possession notice. He alleges that the accused persons deliberately sold the mortgaged properties to him, misappropriated his money, and showed him forged/fake government documents to conceal the encumbrance. He further alleges that when he confronted petitioner No. 1, he was threatened with false implication and harm to himself and his family if he approached the police. 5. A chargesheet stands filed in these proceedings only against the petitioners herein. 6. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties have settled their disputes amicably, as recorded in a Settlement Agreement dated 18.11.2023. The settlement contemplates payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month by the petitioners to respondent No. 2, towards future loss of opportunity of rent till the revocation/de-sealing of the shops. 7. Learned counsel for the parties also confirm that the settlement has 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 31/08/2026 at 10:55:43 CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, states that the matter has been resolved, and he has no further grievance against the petitioners. 8. I am informed that, in the meanwhile, the shops in question have also been released pursuant to release letters dated 20.08.2024 and 06.12.2025, and have thereafter been duly handed over to respondent No. 2. 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 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 31/08/2026 at 10:55:43 CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 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. 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 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 31/08/2026 at 10:55:43 CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 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 present case arises out of sale of mortgaged commercial shops, which has since been resolved amicably between the parties upon clearing of dues. The shops in question have also been handed over to respondent No. 2 since. The dispute, in substance, bears a predominantly civil and financial character, without any overriding element of public interest or grave criminality. 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 settlement and the voluntary nature of the compromise, and there appears to be no likelihood of a successful prosecution. 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 31/08/2026 at 10:55:43 CRL.M.C. 6219/2026 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 justice. 12. In view of the settlement recorded above, the petitioners have handed up the balance amount, i.e. 12,80,000/- by way of a demand draft to respondent No. 2 in Court today. There is therefore no impediment in granting the relief sought. 13. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 175/2023, dated 01.08.2023, registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 15. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 25, 2026 ‘B’/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 31/08/2026 at 10:55:43