Delhi High Court
Sh. Charanpreet Singh & Anr vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 19 August, 2025
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19.08.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 9360/2024
SH. CHARANPREET SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Petitioner No. 1 in person.
Petitioner No. 2 through VC.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP.
SI Harish, PS Paschim Vihar.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 177/2012, dated
16.08.2012, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under Sections
380/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC and all proceedings emanating
therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. As per averments made in the FIR, Respondent No. 2 alleged
that petitioners embezzled funds and forged signatures on documents
in order to illegally occupy and claim ownership of his properties in
Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He further submits that despite revoking their
authority and repeatedly requesting the return of assets, the petitioners
CRL.M.C. 9360/2024 Page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:21.08.2025
10:53:43
continued their unauthorized use and also filed false cases against him,
causing financial and mental distress. Chargesheet and charges have
since been filed/framed under sections 467/471/120B/380 IPC against
the petitioners.
3. During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved
their disputes and the terms of the compromise were reduced into
writing in the form of a Family Settlement CUM MOU dated
10.09.2024. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, Petitioner no. 1 shall
sell the entire Second Floor with Roof/terrace Right, part of built up
property bearing no, 88, situated at Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi – 110063, to intending purchaser or any other person
within 4 months from date of execution of the aforesaid settlement and
the total settlement amount of the same shall be divided between
petitioner no. 1 (40% share) and respondent no. 2 (60% share). It is
further submitted that the possession of the aforesaid property shall be
handed over to petitioner no. 1 by respondent no. 2 for the purpose of
execution of sale and petitioner no. 2 shall be sole and absolute owner
of the entire DDA freehold flat bearing no. 80-a, Ground Floor,
Category Janta, in Block/Pocket-A-5, situated at Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi – 110063. Copy of the Family Settlement CUM MOU dated
10.09.2024 has been annexed as Annexure C.
4. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 are physically present
before the Court while petitioner nos. 2 has entered her appearance
CRL.M.C. 9360/2024 Page 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:21.08.2025
10:53:43
through VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as
well as by the Investigating Officer SI Harish from PS Paschim Vihar.
5. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably
settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and he
does not wish to pursue the present matter and confirms that has no
objection if the FIR No. 177/2012 is quashed against the Petitioners.
6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR No. 177/2012 is quashed.
7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of
disputes by observing as under:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would
be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings
would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put
to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceedings.”
8. Further, based on the law laid in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion
that continuation of the aforesaid FIR will be an exercise in futility.
CRL.M.C. 9360/2024 Page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:21.08.2025
10:53:43
9. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of
the case, this court considers that the parties have entered into an
amicable settlement out of their own free will, without any fear, force
or coercion and they should be given an opportunity to lead their lives
peacefully. No purpose will be served in continuing with the present
FIR No. 177/2012, dated 16.08.2012, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar,
Delhi under section 380/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC and all the
other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.
10. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.
177/2012, dated 16.08.2012, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi
under section 380/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC and all the other
consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed
subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/- each to be deposited by petitioners in
Delhi High Courts Advocate Welfare Funds bearing “Account no.
15530110179338”, maintained with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
branch, within a period of one month.
11. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
August 19, 2025
SK
CRL.M.C. 9360/2024 Page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:21.08.2025
10:53:43