Delhi High Court – Orders
Vishal Natani And Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 24 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 & CRL.M.A. 21209/2025
VISHAL NATANI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Joshi, Advocate for P-
1 to 4.
P-1 to 3 in person.
P-4 through VC.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
IO present.
Mr. Ajit Dayal, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 24.07.2025
1. The present petition filed 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. 24/2020 dated 20th
January, 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Amar Colony, Delhi and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is based on a complaint filed by
Hemlata Natani (the Complainant/Respondent No. 2) against her husband
Vishal Natani (Petitioner No. 1), with whom she has a daughter, and his
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 21:27:10
close associates, namely Dipak Chaurasia, Shyam Behari Natani, and
Rajendra Prasad Chaurasia (Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4). It is alleged that the
Petitioners, in collusion with unknown bank officials, committed offences of
cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy by falsely projecting Respondent
No. 2 as a partner in a firm named ‘Power AMR Solutions’ without her
knowledge or consent. It is alleged that the Petitioners forged her signatures
on partnership deeds, bank documents, income tax returns, and PAN
applications to open bank accounts, secure contracts, particularly from
BSES Rajdhani Power and BSES Yamuna Power, and carry out business
transactions in her name. Respondent No. 2 further alleged that Petitioner
No. 1, while serving as General Manager (EMG) at BSES Rajdhani Power,
misused his official position to secure contracts for the said company,
thereby causing loss to public institutions. In light of the foregoing, the
relationship between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 deteriorated and
they started living separately. Based on Respondent No. 2’s complaint, the
impugned FIR was registered on 20th January, 2020 at P.S. Amar Colony.
3. The parties have stated that they have amicably resolved their disputes
and, in furtherance thereof, have entered into a Settlement Deed dated 3 rd
July, 2023. As per the terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to
withdraw all the proceedings pending before various courts. Furthermore,
Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have agreed to reside together again.
4. A copy of the Settlement Deed 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 Petitioners and has agreed to voluntarily
give her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. In light of the
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 21:27:10
foregoing, the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR and
all proceedings emanating therefrom.
5. Respondent No. 2, who has appeared before the Court, has
unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings.
She has confirmed that her decision to settle the matter is voluntary and
made without any undue influence or coercion.
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. While the
offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are non-compoundable, the
offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable. It is well settled that in
the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC
(corresponding to Section 528 of 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 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
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
5
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 21:27:10
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 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 alleged in the present case cannot be treated as
strictly ‘in personam’, and they touch upon public concerns rather than
CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 21:27:10
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.
9. In the present proceedings, Respondent No. 2 has categorically
expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further and has confirmed
the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Further, she has
agreed to reside together with Petitioner No. 1. Given this background, the
continuation of the 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 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) to
secure the ends of justice.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 24/2020 dated 20th January, 2020, registered under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC at P.S. Amar Colony,
Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed.
11. However, given that the state machinery was put to use, the ends of
justice will be served if the parties involved in the impugned FIR are put to
cost. Accordingly, the parties are directed to deposit a consolidated sum of
CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 21:27:10
INR 25,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. Proof of payment to be
furnished to the concerned Investigating Officer.
12. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
13. It is clarified that the settlement shall not impact the rights of the
minor child.
14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 24, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 4895/2025 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 31/07/2025 at 21:27:10