Delhi High Court – Orders
Romesh Sharma vs State & Anr on 8 July, 2025
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1451/2020
ROMESH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S.Tikku, Senior
Advocate with Mr. S.P.
Kaushal, Mr. Saksham
Kalra and Mr. Aaryan
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State with
Insp. Yograj Dalal, PS
Section - 7, EOW.
Mr. Dharmendra Priani,
Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj and
Mr. Dinesh Priani,
Advocates for Ms. Jyoti
Subba (SPA Holder of
Respondent No.2).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of FIR No. 7/1997 dated 21.08.1997, registered at
Police Station S.T.F., for the offences under Sections
448/452/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘)
including the proceedings emanating therefrom. The chargesheet
has been filed in the present case.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner had approached the
complainant for organising a party in the complainant’s farm.
The petitioner had also paid a sum of ₹2,00,000/- as maintenance
charge for keeping possession of the farm for 15 days. It is
alleged that since then, the petitioner had grabbed the farm house
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
illegally. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner
along with Respondent No.3 (secretary of the petitioner) had
conspired to get ownership and possession of the subject farm.
Allegedly, a forged lease deed purporting to show that the farm
house had been leased to the petitioner was created by forging
the signature of the complainant and his wife. A forged GPA in
respect of the subject farm was also allegedly prepared by
forging the signature of the complainant and his wife.
Respondent No.3 had signed the aforesaid lease deed and GPA
as a witness, and he had also gotten the forged GPA notorised.
3. Chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner for the
offences under Sections 448/452/406/420/467/471/506 of the
IPC. Respondent No.3 was charge sheeted for the offences under
Sections 467/471 of the IPC.
4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter
had been amicably settled and the complainant and the petitioner
had also executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated
20.01.2018 (‘MoU’) to the said effect. The complainant had
entered into the settlement through his wife, who held a valid
GPA in her favour in this respect.
5. Subsequently, the suit filed by the complainant was also
decreed pursuant to the joint application filed by the parties
under Order XXIII Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6. It is also recorded in the MoU that the pending criminal
proceedings, including the present FIR, will be brought to an end
and steps would be taken for quashing of the present FIR.
7. It is the case of the parties that before any petition for
quashing of FIR could be filed, the complainant expired on
27.05.2019.
8. It is not disputed either by the prosecution or by the wife
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
of the deceased complainant that the deceased had settled the
disputes, which has also led to passing of the decree by the Civil
Court.
9. Offence under Sections 406/448/420/506 of the IPC are
compoundable whereas offences under Sections
452/467/468/471 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature.
10. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (‘CrPC‘) can quash offences which are non-compoundable
on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused
and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down
parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting
settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6
SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-
“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
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 Page 3 of 7This 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
(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)
11. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State
of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had observed as under :-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject, may be summarised in the following
propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere
in the High Court.
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on
the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the
offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed
by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the
ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity
cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the
family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences
are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious
impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial
in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression
and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the State
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved
in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of
upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. It is relevant to note that the FIR pertains to the year 1997
and almost twenty-eight years have passed since then. The civil
suit filed by the complainant has already been decreed pursuant
to the settlement so arrived at between the parties. It is not the
case of any of the parties that the terms of the settlement have not
been complied with. Although Respondent No.3 was not a party
to the settlement, however, considering that the main accused
and the complainant have settled the matter, continuation of
proceedings would only cause undue harassment to the parties.
13. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties
have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and
continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to
exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC.
14. However, keeping in mind the fact that the matter is
pending since the year 1997 and the State machinery has been
put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is
put to cost.
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
15. In view of the above, FIR No. 7/1997 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject
to payment of cost of ₹1,00,000/- by the petitioner, to be
deposited in the following manner, within a period of four weeks
from today:
a. ₹25,000/- to be deposited with Bar Council of Delhi.
b. ₹25,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Bar
Association.
c. ₹50,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi Police
Welfare Society.
16. Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the
concerned SHO.
17. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 8, 2025
DU
CRL.M.C. 1451/2020 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 15/07/2025 at 21:24:53
[ad_1]
Source link