Allowed

Gaurav Nasa & Anr. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Jul 2024CRL.M.C./334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order quashing an FIR for cheating and forgery. The Delhi High Court accepted a settlement between petitioner acquaintances over a travel agency dispute, finding continuation of proceedings would abuse court process thereby quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 277/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Gaurav Nasa & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 334/2024

¶4

GAURAV NASA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Md. Sahabuddin, Adv. through V.C. Petitioner No. 1 in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State. SI Vipin Kumar, PS Keshav Puram. Complainant /R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R % 11.07.2024

¶10

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 277/2023 dated 11.03.2023, registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, for offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2.

¶11

The parties are stated to be acquaintances. It is alleged that the petitioners had informed Respondent No.2 that they had started a new travel agency, whereafter, Respondent No.2 had paid around ₹1,40,000/- to the petitioners for the purpose of booking tickets for a round trip from Delhi to Toronto. It is alleged that the petitioners initially provided a fake ticket to Respondent No.2, and thereafter, refused to return the money or book an appropriate ticket for him.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 334/2024 Page 1 of 6

¶13

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 02/07/2025 at 08:10:39

¶14

The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have entered in a settlement by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.06.2023, on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure, undue influence, force, misrepresentation or mistake.

¶15

In terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.06.2023, the settlement amount of ₹1,40,000/- has already been paid to Respondent No. 2.

¶16

The parties are present in person and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶17

On being asked, Respondent No.2 he states that he has received the settlement amount and he does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR.

¶18

Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas offence under Section 468/471 of the IPC is non-compoundable.

¶19

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code 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 Apex Court had observed as under :-

¶20

“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

¶21

CRL.M.C. 334/2024 Page 2 of 6

¶22

¶23

the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶24

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.

¶25

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:

¶26

(i) ends of justice, or

¶27

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶28

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 CRL.M.C. 334/2024 Page 3 of 6

¶31

¶32

themselves.

¶33

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.”

¶34

(emphasis supplied)

¶35

Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under :-

¶36

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to

CRL.M.C. 334/2024

Page 4 of 6

be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal 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

CRL.M.C. 334/2024

Page 5 of 6

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.”

¶54

(emphasis supplied)

¶55

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.

¶56

In view of the above, FIR No. 277/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶57

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶59

JULY 11, 2024 “SK”

¶60

CRL.M.C. 334/2024

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

Gaurav Nasa & Anr. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Nasa & Anr. v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Gupta Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Ayush Panwar & Anr. Vs State (Gnctd) & Anr.

Ram Avtar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Nikhil Prasanna Jayan Vs Shweta Sharma

Sh. Tek Chand and Another Vs X

Farukh Vs State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.