CRL.M.C. 5258/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010331552026 + CRL.M.C. 5258/2026, CRL.M.A. 22073/2026 SOM NATH ARORA ALIAS SOM NATH SAPRA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hunny Singh and Mr. Swayam Pali, Advocates. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Rajak Ahamad, PS-C.R. Park. Mr. Madhur Gulshan Sapra, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person. Mr. Praveen Kapoor, Advocate for R- 3 to 8. SI Niranjan Kumar, PS-EOW. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeks quashing of FIR No. 482/2006 dated 04th November, 2006, registered at P.S. C.R. Park, New Delhi, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Subsequently, upon filing of the chargesheet, Section 474 IPC was also added. 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:19 CRL.M.C. 5258/2026 Page 2 of 5 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the chargesheet, is that Petitioner No. 1 represented himself to be the owner of property bearing No. E-493, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, on the basis of certain documents purportedly executed by late Shri R.N. Jain in his favour. It is alleged that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, along with co-accused Parmod Jain, Satish Jain and late Swaraj Jain, acted in furtherance of a conspiracy and induced Respondent No.2/complainant, Shri Gurdev Singh, to purchase the said property for a consideration of ₹48 lakhs. Petitioner No. 2 was alleged to have witnessed certain documents relied upon for the transaction, while the Jain family members were alleged to have represented or facilitated the authority of Petitioner No. 1 to deal with the property. Pursuant thereto, a Sale Deed dated 08th June, 2005 was executed by Petitioner No. 1 in favour of the complainant. Subsequently, the documents relied upon by Petitioner No. 1 were alleged to be forged and, upon investigation and forensic examination, the prosecution alleged that the accused persons had forged and used the said documents to cheat the complainant. 3. It is relevant to note that the chargesheet was filed against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as well as Parmod Jain, Satish Jain and late Swaraj Jain. Parmod Jain and Satish Jain were subsequently discharged by the Trial Court vide order dated 18th August, 2025, while proceedings against late Swaraj Jain stood abated on account of his demise. The present petition has, therefore, been preferred only by Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, namely Ms. Poonam Jain, Mr. Rajiv Jain, Mr. Sanjiv Jain and Ms. Namita Jain, are the legal heirs of late Swaraj Jain and are parties to the present proceedings in that capacity, while Respondent No.2, Shri Gurdev Singh, is the original 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:19 CRL.M.C. 5258/2026 Page 3 of 5 4. Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 22nd March, 2026, which was recorded before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi, on 17th April, 2026. In terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2/complainant has agreed not to pursue the present FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom against the Petitioners. 5. Respondent No. 2/complainant, Shri Gurdev Singh, is present and has been identified by Mr. Madhur Gulshan Sapra, Advocate. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, namely Ms. Poonam Jain, Mr. Rajiv Jain, Mr. Sanjiv Jain and Ms. Namita Jain, are present through video conferencing and have been identified by Mr. Praveen Kapoor, Advocate. The Petitioners are present and have been identified by Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. The Investigating Officer, SI Niranjan Kumar, EOW, states that he is unable to personally identify the Petitioners, the FIR having been registered in the year 2006. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded on the basis of the identity proofs placed on record and the identification made by the respective counsel. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 6. Respondent No. 2 confirms the aforesaid settlement and states that he has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the offence under Section 420 is compoundable with the permission of the Court, offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B are non- compoundable. 8. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under Section 528 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:19 CRL.M.C. 5258/2026 Page 4 of 5 of BNSS to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 CrPC. This power may be exercised even in cases involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled the matter. However, the power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The guiding considerations are whether such exercise would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the Court. While exercising this power, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, the Supreme Court has reiterated these principles and held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the proceedings where, having regard to the settlement, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 9. Although the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC are not strictly offences of a private nature and may have an element of public interest, the Court is also required to consider the practical likelihood of the prosecution culminating in a conviction. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the parties have entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement and the complainant is no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the possibility of conviction may become remote and bleak. In such circumstances, where continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would not advance the interests of justice, the Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. 10. The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 has categorically expressed his 1 (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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:19 CRL.M.C. 5258/2026 Page 5 of 5 unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 11. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 12. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 482/2006 dated 4th November, 2006, registered at P.S. C.R. Park, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 13. However, since the State machinery was set in motion on account of the subject FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Petitioners are directed to deposit INR 50,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of payment be deposited with the concerned IO within two weeks thereafter. 14. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement. 15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 nk 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 05/10/2026 at 11:47:19