Allowed

Mrs. Geeta Bedi v. State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./1724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of a 2016 complaint for forgery and cheating offences after the parties executed a settlement deed and the complainant received the full settlement amount. The Court relied on Gian Singh, noted the State had no objection, allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Complaint CC No. 25321/2016 under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed; pending applications disposed of.

Mrs. Geeta Bedi Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 08.07.2025

¶4

- CRL.M.C.1724/2025 & CRL.M.A. 7766/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPEDCOPIES ETC., CRL.M.A. 9345/2025 FOR FILING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.

¶5

MRS. GEETA BEDI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shantanu Bhardwaj, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. … Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Rohit, PS R.K. Puram.

¶8

Ms. Shivani Sehrawat & Ms. Tusharika Mattoo, Advs. for R- 2 along with R-2 in person.

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶11

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶12

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of complaint bearing CC No. 25321/2016 filed under section 200 Cr.P.C. under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶13

The grandmother of Respondent no.2 was allotted a shop. The Respondent no.2 is now the owner of the said shop which he got from his father, as his grandmother died intestate. The Respondent no.2

¶14

CRL.M.C. 1724/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.07.2025 18:56:11

¶16

received information that the Petitioner is selling the shop and on inspection found a forged will of his grandmother and a false application for transfer of shop in the name of the mother-in-law of the Petitioner. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid complaint for the offences punishable under section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC.

¶17

During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Deed dated 14.05.2023. It is submitted that all the previous complaints and litigations initiated by the parties have been withdrawn and all conditions of the Settlement Agreement have been fulfilled including the payment of the total settlement amount of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees three lacs twenty five thousand) as per the schedule mentioned in the Settlement Deed. The copy of Settlement Deed dated 14.05.2023 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Rohit, from PS R.K. Puram.

¶19

Respondent No.2 confirms that the matter has been settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and he has received the payment of the entire settlement amount of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees three lacs twenty five thousand) from the Petitioner as per the schedule mentioned in the Settlement Deed. He further submits that he

¶20

CRL.M.C. 1724/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.07.2025 18:56:11

¶22

has no objection if the complaint bearing CC No. 25321/2016 is quashed against the petitioners.

¶23

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present complaint bearing CC No. 25321/2016 is quashed.

¶24

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:-

¶25

"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."

¶26

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present complaint bearing CC No. 25321/2016 filed under section 200 Cr.P.C. under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

¶27

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and complaint bearing CC No. 25321/2016 filed under section 200 Cr.P.C. under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶28

CRL.M.C. 1724/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:0 8.07.2025 18:56:11

¶30