CRL.M.C. 7115/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010456322026 + CRL.M.C. 7115/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29715/2026 MAYANK PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Murari Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Nimisha Gupta, Ms. Bhumika Gupta, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate along with SI Vinod Kumar, PS Cyber Outer District. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Yadav, Mr. Devansh Malhotra, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0008/2026 dated 07th February, 2026,3 registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:27 CRL.M.C. 7115/2026 Page 2 of 5 Sanhita, 20234 at P.S. Cyber Outer District, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the impugned FIR arises from a transaction concerning procurement of a work visa for Respondent No. 2/Complainant for Dubai. It is alleged that the Petitioner represented that he would arrange a work visa for Respondent No. 2 and, towards the same, received approximately INR 3,78,000/- from her under various heads. When the promised work visa did not materialise and the amount was not refunded, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint, pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3. The parties state that they have amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th September, 2026, a copy whereof has been placed on record. Under the settlement, the Petitioner has paid a sum of INR 4,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of her claims, by way of cheque dated 23rd March, 2026, receipt whereof has been duly acknowledged by Respondent No. 2 in the Memorandum of Understanding itself. It is further stated that no grievance survives between the parties and they have agreed to bring the proceedings initiated against each other in relation to the dispute to an end. 4. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms that she has voluntarily settled the matter with the Petitioner, without any force, coercion or undue influence, and acknowledges receipt of the entire settlement amount of INR 4,00,000/-. She states that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR and has no objection to its quashing. A No Objection Affidavit to this effect has also been placed on record by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner is also present in 4 “BNS” 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:27 CRL.M.C. 7115/2026 Page 3 of 5 Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS is non-compoundable. At the same time, it is well settled that in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,5 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 5 (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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:27 CRL.M.C. 7115/2026 Page 4 of 5 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. In the present case, the allegations arise from a transaction concerning procurement of a work visa for Respondent No. 2, for which certain amounts were paid by her to the Petitioner. The dispute is thus predominantly financial in nature. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes and, in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th September, 2026, the Petitioner has paid INR 4,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of her claims. 7. Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that no grievance survives against the Petitioner and that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR. She has also confirmed that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and without any force, coercion or undue influence. In these circumstances, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the settlement between the parties and the unequivocal stand of Respondent No. 2, the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no worthwhile purpose. The Court therefore considers it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:27 CRL.M.C. 7115/2026 Page 5 of 5 BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 8. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 008/2026, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 9. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to deposit INR 5,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/ab 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 29/09/2026 at 11:05:27