Delhi High Court – Orders
Gian Prakash Arora & Anr vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 11 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16380/2025, CRL.M.A.
16381/2025
GIAN PRAKASH ARORA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate with
Petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Ravi Kumar, PS: Mayapuri.
Mr. Nagender Deswal and Mr. Rishi
Raj Deswal, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.08.2025
1. The present petition filed 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. 25/2017 dated 25th
January, 2017, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603
at P.S. Mayapuri, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of CrPC by
Respondent No. 2, Rajender Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s Kumar Saree
Palace, the Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 20th December, 2016,
directed registration of FIR No. 25/2017 against the Petitioners under1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42
Section 420 of IPC. The allegation is that between November and December
2012, the Complainant advanced a sum of INR 32,95,000/- to the
Petitioners’ company, through bank transfers, as a friendly loan, evidenced
by a receipt-cum-promissory note executed by Petitioner No. 2 on 27th
December, 2012. The Petitioners allegedly undertook to repay the amount
by 30th May, 2014, with interest at 24% per annum, but defaulted on the
same.
2.2. Subsequently, at the Complainant’s request and in purported
discharge of their liability, the Petitioners issued Cheque No. 225043 dated
27th June, 2014 for INR 48,61,215/- drawn on HDFC Bank, which was
dishonoured for the reason “insufficient funds”. The Complainant then
initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
18814, in CC No. 11642/2016. Thereafter, a Compromise Deed dated 18th
September, 2015 was executed between the parties. Pursuant thereto,
Petitioner No. 1, in the presence of Petitioner No. 2, issued six cheques of
INR 8,10,000/- each, drawn on HDFC Bank, Janakpuri. Upon presentation,
all six cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement “drawer’s signature
differs”.
2.3. A legal notice dated 18th April, 2016, was then issued by the
Complainant but was allegedly not received by the Petitioners. The
complaints addressed to the SHO, P.S. Mayapuri, and the DCP (West), also
elicited no response. It was only upon the directions of the Metropolitan
Magistrate, that the present FIR came to be registered. Investigation
revealed that the account on which the six cheques were drawn had
Petitioner No. 2, Atul Arora, and one Manish Bansal as authorised
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42
signatories, whereas the cheques in question were signed by Petitioner No.1,
Gian Parkash Arora, who was not authorised to operate the account.
2.4. During investigation, the Petitioners were served notices under
Section 41A of CrPC and joined the investigation. In the course of
interrogation, it was allegedly admitted that Petitioner No. 1, Gian Parkash
Arora, was not an authorised signatory to the bank account; nevertheless,
cheques signed by him were handed over to Respondent No. 2. Both
Petitioners were then arrested on 15th May, 2019 and subsequently released
on bail. The Investigating Officer collected the account opening forms, KYC
documents, and admitted signatures from the bank, along with specimen
signatures available in the court record. On review of this material, a
chargesheet was filed against the Petitioners under Sections 420, 46, 471 and
120B of IPC.
3. Now the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and
differences, and have executed a settlement dated 11th March, 2025. Under
its terms, Respondent No. 2 had decided not to pursue the present FIR
against the Petitioners. The settlement has been noted in the orders dated
11th March, 2025 and 1st April, 2025 passed by DJ-03, South West District,
Dwarka, New Delhi in Ex. Civil DJ ADJ 343/2024. In the said proceedings,
on 24th April, 2025, Respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of the full and final
payment towards all dues and outstandings in respect of the proceedings
initiated by him. Further, a No Objection Affidavit of Respondent No. 2 has
been duly placed on record, confirming receipt of the full and final
settlement amount.
4. Respondent No. 2, who has appeared before the Court in person,
4
“NI Act”
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42
confirms the settlement as well as the receipt of the full and final payment of
INR 1,05,00,000/- from the Petitioners. He further confirms that he has no
surviving grievance against the Petitioners and has no objection to the
quashing of the impugned FIR. In light of the amicable resolution between
the parties, the Petitioners seek quashing of the subject FIR and all
proceedings arising therefrom.
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the
offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC are generally non-
compoundable. However, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to 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.5 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]
6. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 the
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42
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
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 offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC cannot
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42
be treated as strictly ‘in personam’, and they 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.
8. Respondent No. 2, who has appeared in person, 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 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of
CrPC) to secure the ends of justice.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
25/2017 dated 25th January, 2017, registered under Section 420 of IPC at
P.S. Mayapuri, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed, subject to each Petitioner depositing costs of INR 5,000/- with the
Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of three weeks from today.
10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with any pending
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 11, 2025/d.negi
CRL.M.C. 3733/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 18/08/2025 at 21:37:42