Allowed

Sh Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2025W.P.(CRL)/625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of an EOW FIR for cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy concerning loans to home buyers of a builder. The complainant bank received the full settlement amount and had no objection; the court quashed the FIR subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 69/2021 and all consequential proceedings quashed, subject to deposit of ₹20,000 cost with Delhi Police Welfare Society within eight weeks.

Sh Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. Vs State Govt. NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~43

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(CRL) 625/2025

¶4

SH SANJAY AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Honey Khanna, Mr. Diwaker Lohia and Ms. Guneeta, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr. Nikunj Bindal, Advs. with SI Amit Kumar, EOW, Delhi. Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Mr. Himanshu Kaushik and Ms. Ruchi Kaushik, Advs. for ICICI Bank.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 16.04.2025

¶6

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 69/2021 dated 04.05.2021, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, for offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶7

The FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint given by the complainant against the company, namely, AEZ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and other persons including the officials of the said company for cheating and forgery.

¶8

W.P.(CRL) 625/2025

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

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 21/04/2025 at 12:07:23

¶11

It is alleged that the complainant bank had advanced loan to the home buyers who had purchased the properties (flats) from the accused company.

¶12

It is alleged that the loan was not repaid and the flats were found to have not been constructed. Certain other FIRs were registered at the instance of home buyers. It is pointed out that other FIRs which were registered at the instance of home buyers have either been quashed or a closure report has been filed by the State in the said FIRs.

¶13

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all the disputes have been settled with all the parties and, at this stage, no complaint is pending against the petitioners. 6. He submits that the bank has also settled the dispute and has received the entire settlement amount. 7. The matter was listed before the learned Registrar on 21.02.2025. By order dated 21.02.2025, the learned Registrar recorded the compromise / settlement between the complainant and the petitioners. The statement of the authorized representative of the complainant was also recorded by the larned Joint Registrar stating that they have amicably settled as per the settlement.

¶14

This Court by order dated 04.04.2025, had recorded that the authorized representative of the complainant has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

¶15

Offences under Sections 406/420 of the IPC are compoundable in nature.

¶16

Undisputedly, the complainant has received the entire settlement amount and is satisfied with the same. He also has no objection if the dispute is put to rest.

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

W.P.(CRL) 625/2025

¶19

¶20

This Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by relegating the parties to the learned Trial Court for filing an application to compound the offence.

¶21

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.

¶22

However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

¶23

In view of the above, FIR No. 69/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the payment of cost of ₹20,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society within a period of eight weeks.

¶24

Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.

¶25

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶27

APRIL 16, 2025 ‘KDK’

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(CRL) 625/2025

¶30

Sh Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Sanjay Aggarwal & Anr. v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Ashok Ranga Vs State of Delhi and Anr.

Rmh General Trading Llc & Ors. Vs Delhi Police Thr. Its Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Pranav Goyal Vs Vandana Aggarwal

Shashikant Gosavi & Anr. Vs State of NCT Delhi

Mohit @ Moti Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs the Chairman National Commission for Sc St

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs the Registrar General Delhi High Court & Anr.

Vijendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Sidhharth Mukesh Bhandari Vs State NCT of Delhi through SHO Police Station Lodi Colony

Ashok Ranga Vs State of Delhi and Anr.

Shah Alam Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr.

State Vs Rajiv Kumar

Income Tax Officer Ward 73(2) New Delhi Vs Mky Constructions Private Limited and Anr. Formerly Kmown as Action Bridge Gap Constructions Pvt. L