Disposed

Mehul Kumar Manuji Thakor v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC8 May 2026CRL.M.C./2137/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of an online financial fraud FIR after parties settled and the complainant's Rs. 4 lakh was returned. Complainant confirmed voluntary settlement with no grievance. Court quashed the FIR under Section 528 BNSS, subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000 costs with DHCLSC.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mehul Kumar Manuji Thakor Vs State of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 08^th May, 2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 2137/2026

¶5

MEHUL KUMAR MANUJI THAKOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra and Mr. Abhinav Sahai, Advocates. Petitioner (video-conferencing)

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket Kumar and Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates.

¶8

Mr. Avinash Kr. Singh and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocates for R-2. Respondent No.2 in person.

¶9

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

¶10

Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 60000748/2026 dated 07.02.2026, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, for commission of offences under Sections 318(4)/319/340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding Sections 420/416/471 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶11

The FIR was registered on 07.02.2026 on the basis of complaint made by Mr. Malkeet Singh (respondent No.2 herein) who claimed that he was victim of online financial fraud and somebody deceived and cheated him and made him part with a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. According to him, certain fake

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

CRL.M.C. 2137/2026 1

¶14

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 15:53:51

¶15

documents and electronic records were prepared in order to induce him. 3. The abovesaid amount of Rs.4 lacs, in three tranches was, eventually, transferred to the petitioner’s bank account held with ICICI Bank, Branch Chhabaliya, District Mehsana, Gujarat. 4. The matter has, reportedly, been settled and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been drawn between the parties, which is dated 23.02.2026.

¶16

Respondent No.2 is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel as well as by Investigating Officer.

¶17

According to the settlement, the abovesaid investment was made by the complainant (respondent No.2) and the amount was transferred from his bank account to the petitioner’s account but, on account of medical emergency, the petitioner became unreachable and, therefore, owing to some communication gap, the respondent No.2, started feeling cheated and, therefore, lodged the abovesaid complaint which resulted in abovesaid FIR. It is mentioned therein that thereafter the petitioner contacted him and has returned the abovesaid amount in the second week of February, 2026.

¶18

When asked, respondent No.2 reiterates the terms of abovesaid settlement and submits that the matter has been amicably settled and the terms of the settlement are as per his instructions and are voluntary in nature. He, therefore, submits that since he has received back the entire amount, he is left with no grievance. He states that he has entered into abovesaid compromise without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever and, therefore, he would have ‘ no objection’ if the present FIR in question is quashed.

¶19

The case is still at the stage of investigation and offence under Section

¶20

CRL.M.C. 2137/2026 2

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 15:53:51

¶23

318 (4) BNS is compoundable in nature.

¶24

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose,

¶25

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

¶26

Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 60000748/2026 dated 07.02.2026, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, for commission of offences under Sections 318(4)/319/340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding Sections 420/416/471 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed subject to petitioner depositing cost of Rs. 25,000/- in the account of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within four weeks from today. 12. Proof of deposit of cost, Original MoU as well as original affidavits of the parties shall be submitted before the concerned SHO/IO. 13. The present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶27

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶28

MAY 8, 2026/ss/pb

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

CRL.M.C. 2137/2026 3

¶31

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 15:53:51

Mehul Kumar Manuji Thakor v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mehul Kumar Manuji Thakor v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dolly Khurana & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Deepak Sharma Vs Neo Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Vishal Grover & Anr. Vs Shankar Narayan

Shivam Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Pranav Ansal Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rekha Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.