Allowed¶25

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Gnctd & Anr.

Quashing of FIR – settlement between parties

Delhi HC13 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./8009/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CRL.M.C. 8009/2025 (decided 13.11.2025, Vikas Mahajan, J.) — quashing of FIR No.349/2012 (Sections 420/120-B/174A IPC, P.S. Begumpur) under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 on the basis of amicable settlement; credit card misuse allegations; settlement agreement dated 25.02.2025; Rs.3,40,000/- paid as full and final settlement; complainant's no objection recorded in Court; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied on; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.349/2012 under Section 420/120-B/174A IPC registered at Police Station Begumpur and all other proceedings emanating therefrom. ¶25

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Gnctd & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~64

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 8009/2025

¶4

RAKESH KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paras Jain and Mr. Visha Rajput, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF GNCTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with SI Dilkush, PS-Begumpur.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R % 13.11.2025

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.349/2012 under Section 420/120-B/174A IPC, registered at Police Station Begumpur and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶11

Ms. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP appearing on behalf of State accepts notice.

¶12

The petitioner as well as, respondent no.2 are present in Court and they have been identified by learned counsel for petitioner as well as SI Dilkush, Police Station - Begumpur.

¶13

The case of the prosecution as articulated in the present petition is that an FIR was registered at the instance of respondent no.2/complainant who alleged the misuse of his credit card by the petitioner, whereby financial loss

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 26/11/2025 at 12:22:51

¶16

was caused to him.

¶17

During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved all their disputes amicably without any coercion or pressure and arrived at a settlement, terms whereof have been reduced in writing in terms of the settlement agreement dated 25.02.2025, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the present petition. In terms of the settlement, petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- towards full and final settlement, which has been paid to respondent no.2.

¶18

Respondent no.2 is present in Court. On being queried by the Court, he states that he has settled the matter with the petitioner and has received the entire settlement amount and he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶19

In view of the fact that petitioner as well as respondent no.2 have amicably settled their disputes and regard being had to the statement made by respondent no.2/complainant, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in continuation of criminal proceedings and it will be an exercise in futility.

¶20

At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: (SCC p. 340, para 58)

¶21

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.”

¶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 26/11/2025 at 12:22:51

¶24

It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

¶25

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.349/2012 under Section 420/120-B/174A IPC, registered at Police Station Begumpur alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶28

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶29

NOVEMBER 13, 2025/ jg

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 26/11/2025 at 12:22:51

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Gnctd & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Gnctd & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shama Parveen Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ram Parkash Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Dy Commissioner

Mr. Akash & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Bharat Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Avinash Kumar Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Vs the State (Gnct of Delhi)