Allowed

Sajeeburahman C P v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Mar 2025W.P.(CRL)/3619/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for cheating under IPC Sections 419/420. The Court observed that the parties had settled their dispute, with the petitioner paying the complainant. Relying on Section 582 of BNSS and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Impugned FIR No. 47/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Sajeeburahman C P Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~59

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6980/2025

¶4

SAJEEBURAHMAN C P

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Deepak Prakash, Mr. Rahul Suresh and Ms. Manshi, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for the State. SI Vikshit Tomar, PS: Cyber East.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 06.03.2025

¶13

The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 47/2023 dated 28^th October, 2023 registered at P.S. Cyber Police Station East for offences under Sections 419/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ and all the proceedings

¶14

1 “BNSS”

¶15

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶16

3 “IPC”

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023

¶19

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 10/03/2025 at 12:27:43

¶20

emanating therefrom.

¶21

The impugned FIR was registered on a complaint made by Respondent No. 4. In the said complaint, Respondent No. 4 alleged that he was cheated to the extent of around INR 2,30,000/- on the pretext of investment in trading. For this purpose, Respondent No. 4 had executed multiple transactions in different bank account numbers.

¶22

The chargesheet has not been filed as yet.

¶23

Counsel for the parties state that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 have settled their disputes as per terms of agreement dated 15^th August, 2024, copy whereof has been placed on record. As per the said agreement, the Petitioner has paid an amount of INR 2,21,500/- to Respondent No. 4 through demand draft.

¶24

The Court has interacted with Respondent No. 4 through WhatsApp communication on the mobile phone of SI Vikshit Tomar, Investigating Officer in the present case. The Complainant confirms the settlement and states, without any coercion or pressure of undue influence, that he has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶25

Pertinently the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC are compoundable in nature. 7. It is well-established that the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 582 of BNSS, can compound offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. ,⁴ the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while

¶26

4 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023

¶29

¶30

accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

¶31

“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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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: (i) ends of justice, or

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶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

¶39

Page 3 of 6

¶40

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023

¶41

¶42

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.”

¶43

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶44

8 . Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. ,⁵ the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

5 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶53

Page 4 of 6

¶54

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023

¶55

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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

¶60

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.”

¶61

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶62

Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, 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.

¶63

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 47/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶64

Page 5 of 6

¶65

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023

¶66

¶67

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶68

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶69

MARCH 6, 2025 d.negi

¶70

Page 6 of 6

¶71

W.P.(CRL) 3619/2023

¶72

This is a digitally signed order.

¶73

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 10/03/2025 at 12:27:43

Sajeeburahman C P v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeeburahman C P v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. & Ors.

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

Mohammad Rizwan Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Vs State of NCT of Delh

Vidhy a Bhushan@ Shashi Bhushan @ Guddu Vs State Ofnct of Delhi

Najmus Saqib Vs the State & Ors.

Ramanjeet Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Raushan Khatoon & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs St Ate of NCT of Delhi

K W/O P Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Safwat Amin Vs Shaihsta & Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Neeraj Verma & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Dehi and Anr.

State (Nct of Delhi) Vs Asrar @ Israr @ Popat

Sushma Srivastava Vs State through SHO & Anr.

Rajender Pillai Vs State NCT of Delhi