Petition to quash FIR for cheating arising from a housing society membership dispute, based on a settlement fully implemented through two memoranda of understanding. The court found the dispute predominantly civil in character with no public interest involved and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~100
SH IRVINDER PAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sharma and Mr. Akshay Vaid, Advocates alongwith petitioner.
versus
STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. R2 in person (VC).
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R % 17.03.2026
CRL.M.A. 7932/2026 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
Page 1 of 6
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
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 23/03/2026 at 10:28:32
2 – complainant, appears in person through video conference, and accepts notice. He states that he does not wish to avail the assistance of counsel. 3. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who is stated to be a Colonel in the Indian Army, against the petitioner herein. The allegations, as emerging therefrom, are that, in 2012, the petitioner approached respondent No. 2, representing himself to be the Director of Shri Vallabh Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited [“Society”], and stated that the Society was in the final stages of allocation of land and would thereafter construct flats thereupon. It is alleged that the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 that membership of the Society was offered only to reputed government servants and Army officers, and that each member would be allotted a 3 BHK flat by the end of 2015, at approximately one-third of the prevailing market price. Pursuant to the aforesaid representations, respondent No. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner towards membership of the Society. Thereafter, two other Army officers also became members of the Society. The petitioner then requested respondent No. 2 to deposit a token amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the flat, and also to collect similar amounts from the said two officers. Accordingly, respondent No.2 handed over a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the petitioner. Despite the lapse of the stipulated period, the petitioner neither offered possession/allotment of the flats nor returned the aforesaid amounts. 4. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, as recorded in Memoranda of Understanding dated 24.01.2023 and 23.03.2023. In light of the aforesaid, they seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
Page 2 of 6
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
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 23/03/2026 at 10:28:32
“ 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 . No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in
Page 3 of 6
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
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 23/03/2026 at 10:28:32
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated . The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-andfast category can be prescribed. ”
[Emphasis supplied.]
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:
“ 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: 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
Page 4 of 6
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
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 23/03/2026 at 10:28:32
the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 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
(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 .
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.
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 .”
[Emphasis supplied.]
Page 5 of 6
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
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 23/03/2026 at 10:28:32
resources.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 17, 2026 dy/KA/
Page 6 of 6
CRL.M.C. 1926/2026
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 23/03/2026 at 10:28:32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR under Sections 420/34 IPC arising from a settled commercial transaction can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.Relied on¶9
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.Relied on¶9
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Irvinder Pal Singh
State GNCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2 (complainant, Colonel in Indian Army)
Prateek Jalan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
