CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~66 Q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010099942026 + CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 JAY GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gagan Singh Parmar, Mr. Alok Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Parmar and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Sen, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Love Deswal. Mr. Rahul Kulhare, Advocate for R2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. By way of 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”]), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 92/2026 [60001110/2026], dated 28.02.2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], at Cyber Police Station, South-West District, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement. 2. The parties are present through video conference, and 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:16 CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 Page 2 of 6 duly identified by their respective learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. 3. The petition is taken up for disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who alleged that he had been cheated of an amount of Rs. 1,43,000/-. He alleged that, in December 2025, he was approached by representatives of TS Trident Company, Vijay Nagar, Indore [“the Company”], who offered algorithmic trading services with assured high returns. Relying on their representations, he invested the aforesaid amount through multiple UPI transactions. However, after receiving the payment, the Company failed to provide the promised services and also refused to refund the amount. In the course of the investigation, it was found that the money had been deposited into bank accounts linked to the petitioner. 5. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties amicably settled their disputes, as recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.03.2026. The settlement records that a sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR. 8. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that the State has also taken a decision to file a cancellation report in respect of the impugned FIR. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:16 CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 Page 3 of 6 9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their extraordinary powers under Section 528 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 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 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:16 CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 Page 4 of 6 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 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. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:16 CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 Page 5 of 6 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 10. The present case arises out of an alleged instance of online fraud. The dispute, though attracting the provision of Section 318(4) of BNS, is essentially of a private and financial nature, and does not involve any element of grave criminality or overriding public interest. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, and respondent No. 2 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. 11. As noted above, the State has also taken a decision to file a cancellation report. However, as the matter has been amicably resolved and respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and represented by learned counsel, has no objection to quashing of the FIR, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 92/2026 [60001110/2026], dated 28.02.2026, registered at Cyber Police Station, South-West District, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:16 CRL.M.C. 1975/2026 Page 6 of 6 12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement. 13. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 SS/SM/ 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 21/09/2026 at 11:05:16