Disposed

Baljeet Singh v. the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC23 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./4866/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash an FIR alleging forgery and cheating arising from a rent agreement and receipt-cum-undertaking dispute over a property. Parties settled and complainant withdrew objections; the court quashed the FIR under Section 528 BNSS subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.280/2025 PS Rajouri Garden and consequential proceedings quashed, subject to payment of ₹10,000 cost by petitioner to Delhi Police Welfare Society within four weeks.

Baljeet Singh Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4866/2025 & CRL.M.A. 21090/2025

¶4

BALJEET SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Amit Gaba, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State. SI Ashwini Kr. PS Rajouri Garden. Mr. Deepak Sahni, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R % 23.07.2025

¶11

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.280/2025 dated 15.05.2025, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’). The FIR was registered on a complaint made by the complainant/ Respondent No.2.

¶12

The petitioner filed a civil case seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to both the first floor and the second floor of the subject property, which is owned by the complainant and her minor son. It was claimed that the husband of the complainant had rented out first floor of the subject

¶13

CRL.M.C. 4866/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 31/07/2025 at 12:26:52

¶17

property to the petitioner for a monthly rent of ₹52,000/- by way of agreement dated 03.04.2023. It was further claimed that thereafter, the complainant’s husband along with some other persons had approached the petitioner for taking both the first and second floor of the subject property on “no rent and no interest basis”, against the consideration of ₹18 lakhs. The petitioner claimed in the said suit that the amount of ₹18 lakhs was paid to the complainant’s husband in cash and a receiptcum-undertaking dated 27.01.2024 had been executed by the complainant’s husband.

¶18

On finding out about the suit, the complainant filed an application for impleadment. It is alleged that on perusal of the judicial record of the suit, it was found that the signatures of the complainant’s husband on the rent agreement dated 03.04.2023 filed by the petitioner were forged. It is alleged that as per the correct copy of the rent agreement, the petitioner was to make monthly payment of rent, however, no payment was made. Allegedly, the receipt-cum-undertaking dated 27.01.2024 was also found to be fabricated with the forged signatures of the complainant’s husband, and the complainant’s husband was not even in India at that time. This led to registration of the present FIR.

¶19

The present petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner and the complainant have settled all their disputes by way of Settlement Agreement dated 04.06.2025, on their own free will, without any force, coercion or undue influence.

¶20

As per the settlement agreement, the petitioner has already paid the entire settlement amount of ₹15,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement of all the claims of Respondent

¶21

CRL.M.C. 4866/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 31/07/2025 at 12:26:52

¶24

No. 2 against the petitioner. It is stated that the civil suit pending in relation to the suit has also been withdrawn in view of the settlement.

¶25

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 7. On being asked, Respondent No.2/complainant states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed. 8. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Sections 467/468/471 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) [ erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under :-

¶26

“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:

¶27

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

¶28

CRL.M.C. 4866/2025

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

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 31/07/2025 at 12:26:52

¶31

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.

¶32

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:

¶33

(i) ends of justice, or

¶34

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶35

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.

¶36

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. 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.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under :-

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

CRL.M.C. 4866/2025

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 31/07/2025 at 12:26:52

¶45

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 noncompoundable.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

CRL.M.C. 4866/2025

Page 5 of 6

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

¶56

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.”

¶57

(emphasis supplied)

¶58

It is pertinent to note that the matter was settled shortly after registration of the FIR. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶59

In view of the above, FIR No.280/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of four weeks from date.

¶60