Allowed

Rajbir Singh Uppal & Anr. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC14 May 2025CRL.M.C./2720/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of an FIR for forgery and cheating arising from a disputed property sale, after the parties settled and the complainant consented. The Court exercised its inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences given the civil character of the dispute, imposing costs on the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 485/2011 and all consequential proceedings quashed, subject to payment of INR 5,000 cost to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Rajbir Singh Uppal & Anr. Vs State & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2720/2025 & CRL.M.A. 12208/2025

¶4

RAJBIR SINGH UPPAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Lokesh Baimad, MR. Karan Kumar and Ms. Jyoti Baimad, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP with Ms. Shilpa Goel and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocates for R-1. Inspector Satyender Dhull, P.S. EOW. Ms. Surbhi and Ms. Rakshita Goyal, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 (through VC).

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

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. 485/2011³ registered under Sections 468/420/471/467/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴ at P.S. Amar Colony and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶8

1 “BNSS”

¶9

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶10

3 “the impugned FIR”

¶11

4 “IPC”

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶14

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2025 at 12:32:38

¶15

CRL.M.C. 2720/2025 Page 1 of 6

¶16

A complaint made by Respondent No. 2 wherein he alleged that he was approached by the Petitioners, for purchase of property No. F-3/2, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 presented himself as the holder of General Power of Attorney issued in his favour by one Deepak Rana for purchasing the aforesaid property on his behalf. On the basis of this assurance, Respondent No. 2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement to Sell dated 25^th February, 2011 with Petitioner No. 1. However, a dispute arose on the basis of the genuineness of the GPA executed by Deepak Rana in favour of Petitioner No. 1 and consequently, the impugned FIR was registered.

¶17

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and a Settlement Deed dated 17^th April, 2025 has been executed by the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings pending before various Courts. As per the terms of settlement, the Petitioner have agreed to pay INR 11,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2.

¶18

On 5^th May, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar whereby he confirmed the terms of the settlement 5. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court, confirms her statement made to the Court and gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also on record.

¶19

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. Notably, offence under Sections 468, 471, 467 and 120B of IPC is non-compoundable while

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 15/05/2025 at 12:32:38

¶22

2 of 6

¶23

offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court.

¶24

It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 582 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,⁵ the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

¶25

“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:

¶26

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.

¶27

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:

¶28

(i) ends of justice, or

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which

¶32

5 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 15/05/2025 at 12:32:38

¶35

CRL.M.C. 2720/2025 Page 3 of 6

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.”

¶39

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶40

8 . Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

¶41

& Anr. ,⁶ the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the

¶46

6 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶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 15/05/2025 at 12:32:38

¶49

CRL.M.C. 2720/2025 Page 4 of 6

¶50

High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶51

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

This is a digitally signed order.

¶59

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 15/05/2025 at 12:32:38

¶60

CRL.M.C. 2720/2025 Page 5 of 6

¶61

system will weigh in the balance.”

¶62

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶63

Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS as no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶64

However, considering the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put to cost.

¶65

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 485/2011 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to the payment of cost of INR 5,000/- to be paid to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

¶66

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶67

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶68

MAY 14, 2025 as

¶69

This is a digitally signed order.

¶70

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 15/05/2025 at 12:32:38

¶71

CRL.M.C. 2720/2025 Page 6 of 6

Rajbir Singh Uppal & Anr. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir Singh Uppal & Anr. v. State & 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

Chaman Lata Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashish Jain Vs Ashish Gupta

Surender Prashad Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Shekhar Kansal Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Benjamin Rim Vs State(Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.