Delhi High Court – Orders
Rajeev Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 & CRL.M.A. 17277/2025, CRL.M.A.
17278/2025
RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jatin Kumar and Ms. Ishleen
Kaur Ahuja, Advocates.
P-1 in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
SI Mahesh Chand, PS: Badarpur.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 29.07.2025
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. 47/2008 registered at P.S.
Badar Pur for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/448/380/506/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly, the case of the Prosecution against the Petitioners emanates
from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, the sole owner of property
bearing No. J-419, Aparna Vihar, Jatipur Extension Part-1 Badarpur. The
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 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 30/07/2025 at 22:48:34
Complainant alleged that, in 2003, Petitioner No. 1, an acquaintance,
approached him stating that his father (Petitioner No. 2, now deceased) was
unwell and that he had no suitable place to accommodate him. Given their
longstanding relationship, the Complainant allowed Petitioner No. 1 to use
the aforesaid property, which consisted of four rooms, two of which were
vacant, while the remaining two contained personal belongings of the
Complainant, and were locked. No rent or charges were taken for the
arrangement. Relying on Petitioner No. 1, the Complainant did not visit the
property for approximately two years. However, in 2007, police officials
informed the Complainant that he was required in a complaint case lodged
by Petitioner No. 1. This prompted the Complainant to visit the property,
where he discovered that the previously locked rooms had been opened and
the stored items had been stolen. Upon confrontation, Petitioner No. 1
allegedly claimed to possess documents relating to ownership of the said
property, as well as another property belonging to the Complainant. The
Complainant thus, alleged that Petitioner No. 1 had committed cheating and
forgery by fabricating documents concerning his property. Consequently,
based on his statement, the subject FIR was registered on 12th January, 2008.
Petitioner No. 2 has since deceased, and the proceedings qua him were
abated by the Trial Court vide order dated 11th July, 2023.
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 No. 1 and has decided not
to pursue the present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a
Settlement Agreement dated 13th May, 2025, has been executed between the
parties.
CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 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 30/07/2025 at 22:48:34
4. A copy of the Settlement Agreement has been placed on record and
perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually
resolved all disputes and differences with the Petitioner No. 1 and has
agreed to voluntarily give his no objection to the quashing of the subject
FIR.
5. In view of the settlement, the Complainant, who has appeared before
the Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer, has unequivocally
stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings. He has
confirmed that his decision to settle the matter is voluntary and made
without any undue influence or coercion. He has submitted that he has
neither received nor does he intend to claim any monetary compensation
from the Petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 has also joined the proceedings in
person and is duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the
amicable resolution between the parties, Petitioner No. 1 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 467, 468, 471 and 380 of the IPC are non-
compoundable, Sections 420, 448 and 506 of the IPC are 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.4 has held as follows:
“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 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 30/07/2025 at 22:48:34
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]
7. 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
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
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 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 30/07/2025 at 22:48:34
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]
8. Although the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 380 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
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
CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 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 30/07/2025 at 22:48:34
of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
9. 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.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed FIR No.
47/2008 P.S. Badar Pur, as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of INR 25,000/-
by Petitioner No. 1 to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of six
weeks from today. Proof of payment of cost be submitted with the
concerned IO.
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 29, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 3962/2025 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 30/07/2025 at 22:48:34