Delhi High Court – Orders
Niharika Handa vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 29 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 & CRL.M.A. 11147/2025
NIHARIKA HANDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harshit Ailawadi, Mr. Amarjeet
Singh Sahni, Ms. Muskan Singh,
Advocates
Petitioner in person (through VC)
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Ramvatar, PS Vasant
Vihar
Ms. Aarushi, Advocate for R-2 with
Respondent No. 2 in person (through
VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 29.05.2025
1. The present petition 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. 1653/2015 under
Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S.
Vasant Vihar (South) and all proceedings emanating therefrom. In addition,
due to Petitioner’s failure to join the investigation, proceedings under
Section 82 Cr.P.C were initiated against her. She was declared a Proclaimed
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
Absconder and the offence under Section 174A of IPC was added to the
FIR.
2. The prosecution’s case, as set out in the complaint is that the
Petitioner, along with other directors of Tamanna Realtors Private Limited
deceived the Complainant (Respondent No. 2) under the guise of selling a
floor in a building which they purportedly intended to construct. The
Complainant stated that she knew the Petitioner from earlier projects. In
August 2011, the Petitioner approached her, with a proposal to invest in a
four-storey commercial building stated to be under development in
Safdarjung, New Delhi. Relying on these representations, the Complainant
invested a sum of ₹1.50 Crores for the purchase of one floor in the said
project.
3. The Petitioner initially maintained regular contact and shared updates
regarding the construction. However, by February 2012, the Petitioner
allegedly began avoiding calls and became unresponsive. Concerned, the
Complainant deputed an associate to visit the address of Tamanna Realtors
Private Limited, as advertised in the promotional material. To her surprise,
no office or representative of the company was found at the stated location.
4. Upon being confronted, the Petitioner purportedly claimed that the
company had shifted its office premises, but failed to disclose any alternate
address. The Complainant further asserts that no such relocation was
reflected on the company’s official website. On conducting a verification of
the company’s particulars through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal,
the Complainant discovered discrepancies, including the alleged
misrepresentation of the Petitioner’s identity. Growing suspicious, the
Complainant sought details from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
regarding the claimed construction project, only to find that no record of
such a property existed. It was in these circumstances that the Complainant
lodged a statement with the police, alleging that she had been cheated of
₹1.50 Crores. The impugned FIR was thereafter registered on 3rd November,
2015, under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, 1860.
5. Through the present petition, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2
submit that they have amicably resolved their disputes with the intervention
of mutual friends and colleagues. In furtherance of this settlement, a
Compromise Deed dated 22nd February, 2025, was duly executed between
the parties. A copy of the said Compromise Deed has been placed on record
and has been perused by the Court.
6. Respondent No. 2 has confirmed that all disputes and differences with
the Petitioner stand amicably resolved, and she has no objection to the
quashing of the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. As part
of the settlement, the Petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of ₹1.50
Crores to Respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of her claims.
The settlement amount has been structured in three tranches: the first
instalment of ₹30 Lakhs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of
the Compromise Deed; the second instalment of ₹1 Crore was to be paid on
the date of recording of statements before the Court; and the balance amount
of ₹20 Lakhs is to be released at the stage of quashing of the FIR by this
Court.
7. Respondent No. 2, recorded her statement before the Joint Registrar
of this Court on 26th May, 2025, confirming that she has amicably resolved
all disputes with the Petitioner without any pressure, inducement, or
coercion. She has affirmed that the Compromise Deed dated 22 nd February,
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
2025, was voluntarily executed by her and that the settlement pertains
exclusively to the disputes between her and the Petitioner. She has
acknowledged receipt of ₹30,00,000 from the Petitioner in the past and
further confirmed receipt of three cheques, two for ₹50,00,000 and one for
₹20,00,000. She stated that upon realisation of the said cheques, the entire
amount contemplated under the Compromise Deed would stand received.
She has unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR and
has no objection to its quashing.
8. Respondent No. 2 has appeared before this Court through video
conferencing and has been duly identified by her counsel and the
Investigating Officer4. She affirms, without reservation, that she has
voluntarily resolved the dispute with the Petitioner and does not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings any further. She states that the settlement
has been arrived at of her own volition, without any pressure, threat, or
coercion. She also confirms having received the entire settlement amount
from the Petitioner in terms of the Compromise Deed dated 22 nd February,
2025, and expresses no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question.
9. The Petitioner has also participated in the proceedings via video
conferencing and has been identified by the IO. She submits that she has
been residing outside India since the year 2017 and was unaware of the
pendency of any criminal proceedings against her. She states that
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated in her absence, without
her knowledge. She further submits that a Look Out Circular has also been
issued against her. In view of the settlement now reached with the
complainant, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the subject FIR and all
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
consequential proceedings.
10. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offence under Section 174A of IPC is non-compoundable, the offence under
Section 420 is compoundable by the person who was cheated. It is well
settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS
(earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), 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]
11. 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 accept4
“IO”
5
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
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]
12. Although the offence under Section 174A of the IPC (non-appearance
in response to proclamation as an offender) cannot be treated as strictly ‘in
personam’, and it touches 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
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
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.
13. The material on record suggests that the Petitioner left the country in
2017 and remained unaware of the criminal proceedings instituted in
connection with the subject FIR. Her absence from the investigation or
appearance before the authorities occurs to be due to lack of knowledge.
However, the Complainant has now unequivocally stated that she does not
wish to pursue the case anymore. In this backdrop, the continuation of the
proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would merely burden the
criminal justice system without advancing any substantive cause. Taking
into account the overall circumstances of the case, and guided by the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction in such matters, this Court is of the view that intervention under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is warranted to prevent the abuse of process and
to secure the ends of justice.
14. However, considering that the criminal justice machinery was set in
motion on the basis of the impugned FIR registered as far back as in the year
2015, and that the case also involves an offence under Section 174A of the
IPC, this Court finds it appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner.
Accordingly, a sum of ₹30,000/- shall be paid by the Petitioner towards the
Delhi Police Welfare Fund as a token to compensate for the time and
resources expended by the State apparatus.
15. In view of the foregoing, subject to the above, the present petition is
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36
allowed and the FIR No. 1653/2015 under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC,
registered at P.S. Vasant Vihar (South) and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, are hereby quashed.
16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. The proof
deposit of costs be furnished to the concerned SHO within three weeks from
today.
17. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 29, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 2487/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 27/06/2025 at 23:08:36