Delhi High Court – Orders
Manmohan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1162/2025, CRL.M.A. 5206-5207/2025
MANMOHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SI and
Mr. Kishan Chand, SI, PS-Dwarka
South.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 31.07.2025
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. 339/20183 registered under
Sections 420/406/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604, at P.S. Dwarka
(South) and all proceedings emanating therefrom. In the said proceedings,
chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner under the aforesaid
provisions.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution against the Petitioner is as follows:
2.1. Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant) alleges that in 2015, the
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“the impugned FIR”
4
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 1162/2025 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 22:13:10
Petitioner approached him with an offer to purchase a shop/ATM space in
an upcoming commercial project, allegedly representing that the investment
would yield high returns. Relying on these representations, Respondent No.
2 agreed to purchase a shop admeasuring 140 sq.ft. (Shop No. G-12, Ground
Floor) for a total consideration of ₹20,16,000/-, and made a booking by
paying 10% of the Basic Sale Price (₹2,01,600/-) via cheque dated 30th
November, 2015. He was issued an Expression of Interest acknowledgment
and a receipt, followed by a welcome letter and payment plan.
2.2. A demand letter dated 23rd December, 2015 was received by
Respondent No. 2, pursuant to which he deposited the next instalment of
₹2,01,600/- via NEFT on 10th February, 2016. He claims that, at the time of
initial booking, he was informed that foundation work had commenced,
which influenced his decision to invest. However, upon subsequent site
visits, he found that the construction had not progressed and only trench-
digging activity was ongoing.
2.3. Respondent No. 2 alleges that no further demands were raised by the
Petitioner and that he repeatedly received evasive responses when he
enquired about the status of the project. He claims that calls to the agent and
company remained unanswered, the project site showed no progress, and the
company’s office appeared to be non-functional.
2.4. He further alleges that despite several efforts made until August,
2017, he was unable to obtain any information regarding the construction or
refund, and now believes that the Petitioner dishonestly induced him to
invest under false pretences.
2.5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR was
registered.
CRL.M.C. 1162/2025 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 22:13:10
3. The parties state that, with the intervention of common friends,
colleagues and other respectable members of society, Respondent No. 2 has
amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and has decided not to
pursue the present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, the
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 executed a Settlement Agreement dated
22nd February, 2019 before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New
Delhi. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes
and differences with the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give her no
objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In furtherance of the
settlement, the Petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of ₹5,00,000/- to
Respondent No. 2 as final settlement amount.
4. Respondent No. 2, who has appeared before the Court via video
conferencing and is identified by the Investigating Officer, states that he
does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR. He has further acknowledges the
receipt of the full and final settlement amount from the Petitioner.
5. In light of the amicable resolution between the parties, the Petitioner
seeks 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 471 and 468 of IPC is non-compoundable, Sections
420 and 406 of IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court.
7. 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
CRL.M.C. 1162/2025 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 22:13:10
& 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 supplied]
8. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 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.
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1162/2025 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 22:13:10
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]
9. 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
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.
CRL.M.C. 1162/2025 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 22:13:10
10. However, since the State machinery has been set into motion and
chargesheet has been filed, justice would be served if the Petitioner is put to
cost.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 339/2018 as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹5,000/- with
the Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 31, 2025
nk
CRL.M.C. 1162/2025 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 22:13:10
[ad_1]
Source link