Allowed¶43

Priyank Gupta v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC1 Apr 2025CRL.M.C./1174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement; inherent powers — CRL.M.C. 1174/2025, High Court of Delhi, 01.04.2025, Sanjeev Narula, J. (Priyank Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)): Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C.; FIR 175/2018 under Sections 420/506 IPC, PS Rajinder Nagar; cheating and criminal intimidation; forged title deeds; amicable settlement / MOU dated 23.01.2025 for Rs. 28,00,000; compounding versus inherent power; abuse of process; ends of justice; FDR apportionment (Rs. 11,00,000 to complainant, balance to accused); Joint Registrar verification of settlement; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: FIR No. 175/2018 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed; FDR lying with the Trial Court apportioned — INR 11,00,000/- released to Respondent No. 2 and the balance directly to the Petitioner. ¶43

Priyank Gupta Vs State (Nct of Delhi) — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 175/2018 registered under Sections 420/506 IPC at PS Rajinder Nagar and all proceedings arising therefrom ought to be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, in view of the amicable settlement between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

¶35

Court's answer

The offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable at the instance of the aggrieved parties with the permission of the Court, and Section 506 IPC is compoundable by the person intimidated; however, that does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS and passing an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact that all aggrieved parties have amicably settled the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law and impede the ends of justice; it is therefore a fit case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction.

¶37

Key takeaways

FIR No. 175/2018 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.ratio¶41
From the FDR lying with the Trial Court, an amount of INR 11,00,000/- shall be released in favour of Respondent No. 2, and the balance amount shall be released directly to the Petitioner.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.) allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.) and quashed FIR No. 175/2018 (Sections 420/506 IPC, P.S. Rajinder Nagar) together with all proceedings arising therefrom. The FIR arose from allegations that the Petitioner, posing as owner of a Karol Bagh property, induced the Complainant (Respondent No. 2) to part with INR 41,00,000/- under a sale agreement backed by forged title deeds. During pendency the parties executed a Settlement Agreement/MOU dated 23.01.2025 for a total of INR 28,00,000/-; INR 17,00,000/- had been paid and an FDR of INR 9,00,000/- (now exceeding INR 11,00,000/- with interest) lay with the Trial Court. Holding that although Sections 420 and 506 IPC are compoundable, compounding does not debar the High Court from exercising its inherent power to secure the ends of justice, the Court found continuance of proceedings after the amicable settlement futile and an abuse of the process of law, quashed the FIR, and directed apportionment of the FDR — INR 11,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 and the balance to the Petitioner.

¶1

$~73

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1174/2025, CRL.M.A. 5220/2025

¶4

PRIYANK GUPTA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Gourav Bansal, Advocates versus

¶6

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for the State with SI Yogesh Poonia, PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate for R-2 along with Complainant in person

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 01.04.2025

¶9

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 175/2018³ registered under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ at P.S. Rajinder Nagar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. Subsequently, chargesheet has been filed and the Petitioner has been charged under Sections 420/506 of IPC.

¶10

The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Mr. Sonu (Respondent No. 2), who alleged that he advanced a friendly loan of an amount of INR 25,00,000/- to the Petitioner. For securing this loan, the

¶11

1 “BNSS”

¶12

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶13

3 “the impugned FIR”

¶14

CRL.M.C. 1174/2025 Page 1 of 5

¶15

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 02/04/2025 at 12:16:56

¶16

Petitioner portrayed himself to be the owner of property No. 6155, Gali No. 5, Block-1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 and they entered into an agreement to sell dated 11^th January, 2016 for an amount of INR 50,00,000/- in respect of the said property. For this purpose, the Complainant paid a sum of INR 15,00,000/- to the Petitioner as earnest money. Thereafter, the Complainant, upon request made by the Petitioner lent him INR 16,00,000/- and INR 10,00,000/- on two different occasions, which the Petitioner assured, would be adjusted in the sale consideration. In such manner, the Petitioner had extracted INR 41,00,000/- from the Complainant. Upon making inquiries, the Complainant became aware the Petitioner is not the owner of the aforesaid property and the photocopy of the title deeds were forged and fabricated by him. When the Complainant confronted the Petitioner, he warned the Complainant of dire consequences. On this basis, a complaint was made and the impugned FIR was registered. 3. While the Petitioner’s bail application was being decided by this Court, the Petitioner paid INR 17,00,000/- to the Complainant, which has been duly acknowledged by the Complainant. Additionally, an amount of INR 9,00,000/- was deposited in the form of FDR, with the Trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 23^rd January, 2025. As per the said Agreement, the Petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of INR 28,00,000/- to the Complainant towards settlement of the claims. The FDR, which is lying with the Trial Court, was originally in the sum of INR 9,00,000/- and has now accrued interest and amounts to more than INR 11,00,000/-. The parties have agreed that the entire FDR amount,

¶17

4 “IPC”

¶18

CRL.M.C. 1174/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶19

¶20

including the interest, shall be released to the Complainant. From the said amount, the Complainant will then retain INR 11,00,000/- and transfer the balance to the Petitioner.

¶21

On 21^st March, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar and after verification of all critical aspects, the Joint Registrar passed the following order:

¶22

“Today, statement of respondent no. 2 & petitioner has been recorded to ascertain the veracity and the genuineness of the parties entering into settlement.

¶23

Respondent no. 2 lodged FIR No. 175/2018, Under Section 420 IPC, at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi against the petitioner. The charge sheet has been filed in this case and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. The charges under Section 420 & 506 IPC stands framed against the petitioner.

¶24

Now, Respondent no. 2 states that he has voluntarily without any pressure or coercion from anyone and with the intervention of friends and colleagues and after obtaining due legal advice entered into MOU/settlement deed executed on 23.01.2025 with the petitioner and have settled all his issues, disputes and grievances. The MOU is on record as Annexure P-2 at page 42 to 48 bearing his signatures.

¶25

As per the settlement, Respondent no. 2 has already received a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/-. It is further agreed that the FDR for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- along with interest whatsoever accrued thereupon lying in the fixed deposit with the Trial Court of Tis Hazari, which was deposited by the accused/petitioner in compliance of order dated 10.04.2019 passed in bail application 2866/2018 will be released to Respondent no. 2.

¶26

Respondent no. 2 had paid earnest money of Rs. 41,00,000/- to the petitioner for purchase of property, however he has settled the entire dispute for a total sum/compensation of Rs. 28,00,000/-. Out of which Respondent no. 2 has already received Rs. 17,00,000/-.

¶27

The remaining sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- will be received by Respondent no. 2 out of the FDR ought to be released in his favour which was initially for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- and has accrued sufficient interest and the FDR is now for more than Rs. 11,00,000/-. Respondent no. 2 undertakes that when the said FDR will be released to him, he will retain Rs. 11,00,000/- and return the surplus amount to the petitioner within three working days.

¶28

After the release of the FDR in his favour and having obtained additional sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- out of it, the Respondent no. 2 shall

¶29

CRL.M.C. 1174/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶30

¶31

not raise any claim or institute any proceedings whatsoever regarding the dispute for which the abovesaid FIR was registered. Accordingly, Respondent no. 2 has no objections, if the FIR No. 175/2018, Under Section 420/506 IPC, at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi and all proceedings emanating there from are quashed against the petitioner.

¶32

The no objection affidavit of respondent no. 2 is on record.

¶33

Respondent undertakes to abide by the settlement. Petitioner in his statement concedes to have entered into settlement with Respondent no. 2 through aforesaid MOU and undertakes to remain bound by the terms of the settlement and undertakes to have no objection if the above referred FDR deposited with the Trial Court in the abovesaid FIR is released to Respondent no. 2.

¶34

Respondent no. 2 & petitioner have been identified by their counsels. This pre verified report along with the petition may be placed before the Hon’ble Court on 01^st April, 2025 alongwith the statements recorded today.”

¶35

Respondent No. 2 has joined the proceedings in person. He states that he has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and seeks to bring the matter to a quiet conclusion. An affidavit to this effect is also on record. In view of the above, counsel for the parties jointly pray for quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶36

The Court has considered the facts placed on record. It is pertinent to note that the offences under Sections 420 is compoundable at the instance of the aggrieved parties, with the permission of the Court, and Section 506 is compoundable by the person intimidated. However, that does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶37

Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact that all aggrieved parties have amicably settled the matter, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS, as the continuance of proceedings would amount to

¶38

CRL.M.C. 1174/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶39

¶40

an abuse of the process of law and impede the ends of justice.

¶41

In view of the above discussion, FIR No. 175/2018, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶42

It is jointly prayed by the counsel for the parties that instead of the Complainant encashing the entire FDR amount, appropriate directions may be issued by the Court for apportionment of the said amount. Accordingly, it is directed that from the FDR lying with the Trial Court, an amount of INR 11,00,000/- shall be released in favour of Respondent No. 2. The balance amount shall be released directly to the Petitioner.

¶43

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶44

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶45

APRIL 1, 2025/ab

¶46

CRL.M.C. 1174/2025 Page 5 of 5

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

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 02/04/2025 at 12:16:56

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
FIR No. 175/2018 under Section 420 IPC registered at PS Rajinder Nagar on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Sonu); chargesheet subsequently filed and charges framed under Sections 420/506 IPC; the petition under Section 528 BNSS seeks quashing of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.¶23
PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
Prior proceeding
On the complaint of Mr. Sonu (Respondent No. 2), who alleged that he advanced a friendly loan of INR 25,00,000/- to the Petitioner.¶10
Prior proceeding
Alleged agreement to sell dated 11 January 2016 for INR 50,00,000/- in respect of property No. 6155, Gali No. 5, Block-1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; Complainant paid INR 15,00,000/- as earnest money.¶16
Prior proceeding
Complainant lent INR 16,00,000/- and INR 10,00,000/- on two occasions, to be adjusted in the sale consideration; in such manner the Petitioner had allegedly extracted INR 41,00,000/- from the Complainant.¶16
Prior proceeding
Complainant discovered the Petitioner was not the owner and the photocopy of title deeds was forged and fabricated; upon confrontation the Petitioner warned of dire consequences; on this basis the impugned FIR was registered.¶16
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet filed; Petitioner charged under Sections 420/506 of IPC.¶9
Prior proceeding
Per the Joint Registrar's report, the charge sheet had been filed and the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence, with charges under Section 420 & 506 IPC standing framed against the Petitioner.¶23
Prior proceeding
While the Petitioner's bail application was pending before this Court, the Petitioner paid INR 17,00,000/- to the Complainant, duly acknowledged by the Complainant.¶16
Prior proceeding
INR 9,00,000/- deposited as FDR with the Trial Court, in compliance of order dated 10.04.2019 passed in bail application 2866/2018; the FDR has since accrued interest and amounts to more than INR 11,00,000/-.¶25
Prior proceeding
During pendency, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement/MOU dated 23.01.2025, settling all issues, disputes and grievances; as per the Agreement the Petitioner agreed to pay a total of INR 28,00,000/- to the Complainant.¶24
Prior proceeding
On 21 March 2025, statements of Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner were recorded before the Joint Registrar to ascertain the veracity and genuineness of the settlement; Respondent No. 2 stated the settlement was voluntary, without pressure or coercion, and undertook not to raise any further claim regarding the FIR dispute.¶22
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 2 joined the proceedings in person stating no objection to quashing; his no-objection affidavit is on record; counsel jointly prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR.¶35

Priyank Gupta v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyank Gupta v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Dhanpatrai Malhotra Vs Mahender Khari

Deepak Kumar and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Md.Salaan Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Hari Kishan Garg & Anr. Vs Shikha Garg

Opa Ram Vs State(Nct of Delhi)

Neeti Sharma Vs Saranjit Singh