Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohinder Pal And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 & CRL.M.A. 17844/2025
MOHINDER PAL AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, Mr. Lalit Behl,
Mr. Nikhil Bahri and Mr. Aniket
Arora, Advocates with Petitioners.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashneet Singh, APP for R-1.
IO/SI Rajkumar, P.S. Connaught
Place.
Mr. R.P.S. Sirohi, Advocate for R-2
to R-5 with R-2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.07.2025
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. 35/2020 dated 25th June, 2020
under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603,
registered at P.S. Connaught Place and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the Complainant
(now deceased), an illiterate man and 22% partner in M/s Oriental Fruit
Mart, alleged that Petitioner No. 1, his cousin and co-partner, deceitfully
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:25
obtained his signatures on blank and stamp papers under false pretences.
These were used to fabricate a Retirement Deed dated 31st March, 2006,
falsely showing that the Complainant had exited the firm in return for INR
6,00,000/-, an amount which was never received by the Complainant. It is
further alleged that Petitioner No. 1, without the mandatory consent of other
partners as required by the original 2001 partnership deed, inducted his sons,
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, as partners. When the Complainant objected, he was
allegedly threatened with false cases and physical harm. The Complainant
later filed a civil suit, wherein Petitioner No. 1 produced the forged deed,
prompting registration of the impugned FIR under Sections
420/467/468/471/34 of the IPC.
3. The parties state that they belong to the same family and with the
intervention of common friends, colleagues and other respectable members
of society, Respondent No. 2 to 5 have amicably resolved the dispute with
the Petitioners and have decided not to pursue the present FIR against them.
Pursuant to this settlement, a Memorandum of Understanding4 dated 7th
February, 2025, was executed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2
to 5.
4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the
Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 to 5 have mutually resolved all
their disputes and differences with the Petitioner and gave no objection to
the quashing of the impugned FIR. Further, the Petitioners have agreed to
pay a total sum of INR 25,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 to 5 as full and final
settlement amount.
5. In view of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 to 5, who appear in
CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:25
person and are identified by their counsel, unequivocally state that they do
not wish to pursue the FIR. They confirm that their decision to settle the
matter is voluntary and made without any undue influence or coercion. They
further confirm the receipt of the INR 10,00,000/- out of the total settlement
amount from the Petitioner. Additionally, in accordance with the settlement,
the Petitioners have handed over the balance amount by way of a Demand
Draft5 bearing no. 743409 amounting to INR 5,00,000/- and two Post Dated
Cheques6 bearing no. 000007 and 000006 respectively, amounting to INR
5,00,000/- each to Respondent No. 2 during the proceedings. Copies of the
said DD and the two PDCs have been handed over across the Board and are
taken on record.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 467/468/471 of IPC are non-compoundable,
Sections 420 of IPC is compoundable in certain cases. 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 & Anr.7 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 order4
“MoU”
5
“DD”
6
“PDC”
7
(2012) 10 SCC 303
CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:25
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.,8 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 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
8
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:25
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. Although the offences under Sections 467/467/471 of the IPC cannot
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. Respondent No. 2 to 5, in the present case have
categorically expressed their unwillingness to pursue the matter further and
have 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. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
0035/2020 under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the IPC registered at P.S.
CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:25
Connaught Place and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed
10. However, given that the state machinery was put to use, the ends of
justice will be served if the Petitioners are put to certain cost. Accordingly,
the Petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of INR 5,000/- each with the
Delhi Police Welfare Fund. Proof of payment to be furnished to the
concerned SHO.
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 17, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 4111/2025 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 21/07/2025 at 22:14:25