Quashed

Sandeep Rana & Ors. v. Stategovt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC15 Sept 2026W.P.(CRL)/1057/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR from 2013 involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120B, and 34 IPC after the parties amicably settled the dispute. The complainant, aged in his 90s, confirmed receipt of the full sale consideration and expressed no objection to the quashing. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, noting that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and that the primary offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC is compoundable.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 36/2013 and all consequential proceedings quashed; original affidavits and Compromise Deed to be submitted before the Trial Court within two weeks.

Sandeep Rana & Ors. Vs Stategovt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 15^th September, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010132192026

¶5

- W.P.(CRL) 1057/2026 SANDEEP RANA & ORS.

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Aakash Godara, Mr. Vipin Sehrawat and Mr. Manoj Godara, Advocates.

¶8

versus

¶9

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State with Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates. SI Chetan Panwar. Mr. Ankit Hooda and Ms. Anushka, Advocates for R-2 along with respondent No.2 in person.

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶13

Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 36/2013 dated 13.02.2013, registered at Police Station Chhawala, for commission of offences under Sections 420/467/471/120B/34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. The FIR was registered way back in the year 2013 and, unfortunately, the charges have yet not been ascertained.

¶14

The quashing is being sought as the matter has been amicably settled.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that settlement had taken

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 1057/2026 1

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 11:00:10

¶19

place way back on 11.04.2013 and as per order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby accused-Dilip Kumar was admitted to anticipatory bail, it was recorded that matter had been amicably settled and a sum of Rs.45 lacs had already been paid to the complainant. Copy of such order is on record which also indicates that the parties had even expressed their desire to file appropriate application seeking quashing of FIR.

¶20

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been drawn between the parties and compromise deed is on record, which is attested on 10.03.2026. 6. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is in his 90’s and has been duly identified by concerned IO as well as by his counsel. 7. As per the allegations appearing in the FIR, the complainant had made payment of Rs.45.22 lacs towards sale consideration but later on, he realized that the documents executed in his favour were false and fabricated.

¶21

Respondent No.2 when asked, submitted that the matter got settled in the year 2013 itself and he had received the entire sale consideration of Rs.45 lacs in the year 2013 itself and, therefore, he is left with no grievance in the matter and would have no objection if FIR in question is quashed.

¶22

His son-Yashpal is also present in Court and he also reiterates the terms of the settlement.

¶23

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable in nature.

¶24

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed

¶25

W.P.(CRL) 1057/2026 2

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 11:00:10

¶28

appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

¶29

Consequently, FIR No. 36/2013 dated 13.02.2013, registered at Police Station Chhawala, for commission of offences under Sections 420/467/471/120B/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed. Proof of original affidavits and Compromise Deed , copies of which have been placed on record in the present proceedings, shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court within two weeks from today, so that these become part of Trial Court Record.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶31

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶32

SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/ss/sk

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

W.P.(CRL) 1057/2026 3

¶35

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 11:00:10

Sandeep Rana & Ors. v. Stategovt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Rana & Ors. v. Stategovt. of 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

Vikram Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Suaib through His Guardian Father Mohd Rafi Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sunny @ Bhura & Anr. Vs the State (Govt.of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Girish Sagar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ganesh Chand Chetiwal and Another Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.

Bhag Chand Vs Competent Authortity New Delhi & Anr.

Nancy Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.