Allowed

Shahas Rahman R S v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./3145/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of an FIR alleging theft of a vehicle arising from a private sale transaction. The parties settled; the complainant stated on oath he did not wish to pursue the FIR. Holding no public interest was involved and the offence is compoundable, the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shahas Rahman R S Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~92

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3145/2025

¶4

SHAHAS RAHMAN R S .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Atul Maliyan and Mr. Bibin John, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State. SI Ankit Maan, PS: Subash Place. Mr. Kapil Gupta, Director of R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 15.09.2025

¶11

The present petition 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. 2297/2023, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ at e-Police Station Subhash Place, North West and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12

The aforenoted FIR was registered on a complaint lodged by Mr. Kapil Gupta, Director of Respondent No. 2 Company, alleging theft of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle from the premises located at 82, 4^th Floor, Kapil

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “CrPC”

¶15

3 “IPC”

¶16

CRL.M.C. 3145/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 06/10/2025 at 12:57:02

¶19

Vihar, Opposite Gulab Sweets, Pitampura, Delhi. Pursuant to the Complainant’s statement, the subject FIR was registered.

¶20

The Petitioner, however, presents a different account. He states that he had negotiated the purchase of the said vehicle through a middleman, who represented that the vehicle belonged to Respondent No. 2. According to the Petitioner, he paid a sum of ₹5,50,000/- to the said intermediary, whereupon possession of the vehicle was delivered to him.

¶21

Upon inquiry, the Petitioner discovered that the middleman had failed to remit a balance sum of ₹25,000/- to Respondent No. 2, despite having collected the full consideration from him. In order to regularise the transaction, the Petitioner himself made payment of ₹25,000/- directly to Respondent No. 2, whereupon the requisite transfer documents were executed in his favour. However, when the Petitioner approached the concerned RTO for issuance of a No Objection Certificate, the request was declined on the ground that the vehicle was being shown as ‘stolen’ in the official records owing to the subject FIR.

¶22

The Petitioner submits that with the receipt of the said ₹25,000/-, Respondent No. 2 has resolved all disputes and has voluntarily consented to quashing of the FIR. In confirmation, Mr. Kapil Gupta, Director of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, has appeared before this Court through video conferencing, has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer, and has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the FIR. He has further affirmed that the settlement is voluntary, that he has received the aforesaid sum, and that he is fully satisfied. On this basis, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

¶23

The Court has considered the aforenoted submissions. The dispute

¶24

CRL.M.C. 3145/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶25

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 06/10/2025 at 12:57:02

¶26

stems from a private transaction involving sale of a vehicle, which has now been fully and amicably settled. The complainant, who is the Director of Respondent No. 2, has expressly stated on oath that he does not wish to pursue the FIR, having received the outstanding amount of ₹25,000/-. No element of public interest or grave criminal offence is involved, and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It is also pertinent to note that the offence under Section 379 IPC is compoundable, albeit with the permission of the Court, and only at the instance of the aggrieved parties. However, that does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly, Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶27

Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the amicable settlement between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In the circumstances, the case calls for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

¶28

In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed, and FIR No. 002297/2023, registered at e-P.S. Subhash Place, North West as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶29

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶30

SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 d.negi

¶31

CRL.M.C. 3145/2025 Page 3 of 3

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 06/10/2025 at 12:57:02

Shahas Rahman R S v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shahas Rahman R S v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

International Print O Pac Ltd. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Yogesh Parewa & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pravendra Yaday & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sh Brajesh Kumar Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Arun Gupta & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Harsh Jain & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.