[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Gaurav Saran & Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 812/2025, CRL.M.A. 7584/2025 & CRL.M.A. 7585/2025
GAURAV SARAN & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan Sharma,
Advocates with Petitioners in person
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State
Mr. Manav Jain, Advocate for R-2
with Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 30.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 199/20183 under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18604, registered at
P.S. Economic Offences Wing and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant) and his wife had incorporated
Hounslow Builder Private Limited,5 on 5th November, 2012, with equal1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
4
“IPC”
5
“the Company”
W.P.(CRL) 812/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 04/08/2025 at 21:52:06
shareholding. Petitioner No. 1 (Mr. Gaurav Saran) and Petitioner No. 2 (Mr.
Amit Arora) allegedly approached Respondent No. 2 claiming to be in the
construction business and expressed interest in a real estate project on Plot
No. 996, Rithani, Meerut, U.P. On their representation, Respondent No. 2
and his wife allotted them 4000 and 5800 shares respectively, thereby
bringing them into the Company. The Company then purchased the said plot
and commenced construction, with an understanding that all project-related
funds would be routed through the Company’s bank account in Axis Bank,
Sector-18, Noida Branch, U.P.
2.2. It is alleged that Petitioners No. 1 and 2 opened unauthorized bank
accounts in the Company’s name, first at Corporation Bank and later at
Punjab National Bank, without the knowledge or consent of Respondent No.
2, using forged documents and by impersonating Respondent No. 2 and his
wife. Funds received from customers were allegedly diverted to these
accounts. Respondent No. 2 alleges that when he confronted Petitioners No.
1 and 2, they threaten him and his wife of dire consequences.
2.3. With the intervention of Petitioner No. 2’s father, an agreement was
then executed on 21st July, 2015, wherein Petitioners No. 1 and 2 agreed to
purchase the shares of Respondent No. 2 and his wife for INR 5.5 crores.
While INR 1.25 crores was paid, the balance remained unpaid. To secure the
transaction, signed transfer deeds of 5100 shares belonging to the
Complainant’s wife were entrusted to Anshuman Rawat (Petitioner No. 3)
with an understanding that they would be acted upon only upon full
payment. However, 5000 of these shares were allegedly transferred in the
name of Petitioner No. 3 prematurely.
2.4. Respondent No. 2 further alleged Dharmender Kumar, who was
W.P.(CRL) 812/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 04/08/2025 at 21:52:06
subsequently appointed as a director in the Company, has colluded with the
other accused persons. Respondent No. 2 claims that during his visits to the
project site on 1st December, 2017 and 3rd December, 2017 to demand
payment of the outstanding dues, he was threatened by Gaurav Saran, Amit
Arora, Anshuman Rawat, Dharmender Kumar, Vijay Rawat (Petitioner No.
4) and Sudhan Rawat (Petitioner No. 5). He further alleges that during a visit
to their office in February, 2018, Respondent No. 2 was again allegedly
threatened, this time also by one Sachin Rajwanshi (Petitioner No. 6), who
claimed to have recently joined as a director in the Company.
2.5. Consequently, based on the Respondent No. 2’s statement, the
impugned FIR was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120B of IPC.
3. Now with the intervention of common friends, colleagues and other
respectable members of society, Respondents No. 2 and 3 have amicably
resolved their disputes and differences with the Petitioners and have decided
not to pursue the impugned FIR. Pursuant to this settlement, Petitioner No. 1
and Respondent No. 2 executed a Settlement Agreement dated 20th
December, 2023. As per its terms, Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a total sum
of INR 2 crores to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement amount and
in turn, Respondent No. 2 shall transfer 25% shares in the project upon
receiving complete payment.
4. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person and duly identified by the
Investigating Officer, states he has voluntarily and without any pressure or
coercion from anyone, settled all his issues and disputes with the Petitioners.
He has further confirmed the receipt of the full and final settlement amount
from the Petitioner No. 1, as per the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
W.P.(CRL) 812/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 04/08/2025 at 21:52:06
Although the settlement has been executed between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 gives his no-objection to the quashing
of the impugned FIR qua all the Petitioners. An affidavit to this effect is also
placed on record.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC are non-
compoundable, Sections 419, 420 of IPC are compoundable with the
permission of the Court.
6. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C (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. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& Anr.6 has held as follows:
“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353
of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if
the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order
for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the
Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.
12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement
arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2,
I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a
quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an an exercise in futility.”
[Emphasis supplied]
7. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,7 the
Supreme Court held as follows:
6
(2012) 10 SCC 303
7
(2014) 6 SCC 466W.P.(CRL) 812/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 04/08/2025 at 21:52:06
“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.
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]
8. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the
W.P.(CRL) 812/2025 Page 5 of 6
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 04/08/2025 at 21:52:06
complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is no
longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a
conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing
the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no
worthwhile public interest. The Complainant in the present case has
categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further and
has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given
this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and
consuming public resources unnecessarily. Having regard to the totality of
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 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
9. However, since the State machinery has been set into motion, justice
would be served if Petitioners are put to cost.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
are hereby quashed, subject to deposit of INR 5,000/- each with the Delhi
Police Welfare Fund.
11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 30, 2025/ab
W.P.(CRL) 812/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 04/08/2025 at 21:52:06
[ad_2]
Source link