Delhi High Court – Orders
Ajit Kalkal & Anr vs The State (Govt, Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 9 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19374/2025
AJIT KALKAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Randhir Singh Kalkal, Advocate
with Petitioners in person
versus
THE STATE (GOVT, OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI B.K. Bharti, SI Satbir Singh,
PS Najafgarh, Delhi
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 09.07.2025
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 403/2022 under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S.
Najaf Garh and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The Prosecution’s case against the Petitioners is based on a complaint
received by Respondent No. 2, the owner of property bearing No. RZ-24,
located in village Roshanpura, Delhi. The Complainant stated that Petitioner
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 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 14/07/2025 at 21:50:20
No. 2 owned the adjacent property, RZ-23, and had registered a society
named Brilliance Education Society, through which a school called
Brilliance School was being operated. Petitioner No. 1 served as the
treasurer and Petitioner No. 2 as the chairman of the Society. Mrs. Pankaj,
wife of Petitioner No. 1 and President of the Society, executed a five-year
rent agreement on behalf of the society with the Complainant, with a
monthly rent of ₹18,000/-. However, the Petitioners allegedly failed to pay
the rent on time and also did not vacate the premises. To recover possession
and arrears, the Complainant initiated a civil suit before the Dwarka Court.
Additionally, he filed an RTI application with the Education Department
(HQ), South Delhi Municipal Corporation, which revealed that the
Petitioners had allegedly prepared a forged affidavit by falsifying the
Complainant’s signature and submitted it to the office of the Director of
Education at the Civic Centre. Consequently, based on the Complainant’s
statement, the subject FIR was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and
120B of the IPC. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed, wherein the
Petitioners were charge-sheeted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B
of the IPC.
3. The Complainant’s wife thereafter filed an arbitration petition bearing
ARB. P. 333/2025, which was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation
and Conciliation Centre. Pursuant to the mediation proceedings, the parties
amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Conciliated Agreement
dated 2nd April, 2025.
4. A copy of the Conciliated Agreement has been placed on record and
perused by the Court. As per its terms, the Petitioners agreed to hand over
the possession of the subject premises to Respondent No. 2, as well as to pay
CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 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 14/07/2025 at 21:50:20
a final settlement amount of ₹44,00,000/- to him, by way of post-dated
cheques amounting ₹11,00,000/- each. Respondent No. 2 agreed to
withdraw the cases pending between the parties before various forums.
5. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before
the Court and identified by his counsel, has unequivocally stated that he
does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has affirmed that his
decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made without any undue
influence or coercion. He has further confirmed that the possession of the
property in question has been handed over to the Complainant. The
arbitration claim filed by the Complainant against the Petitioners has also
been resolved. Additionally, he has acknowledged the receipt of the full and
final settlement amount from the Petitioners, as per the terms of the
Conciliated Agreement. The Petitioners have also joined the proceedings in
person and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the
amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the
subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are non-compoundable,
Section 420 is compoundable by the person cheated, with the permission of
the Court. It is well settled that in the 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. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 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 14/07/2025 at 21:50:20
& Anr.4 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 added]
8. Further, 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
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 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 14/07/2025 at 21:50:20
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]
7. Although the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC
cannot be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and touch upon public concerns
rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also
account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the present
case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where the
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
CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 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 14/07/2025 at 21:50:20
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.
8. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been
put to motion, the ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put
to cost.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
403/2022, registered at P.S. Najaf Garh and all proceedings emanating
therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 15,000/-
each by the Petitioners to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of
six weeks from today. The proof of payment of cost be submitted with the
concerned IO.
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
JULY 9, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 4450/2025 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 14/07/2025 at 21:50:20