Allowed¶17

Ranjana Chhabra v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2026W.P.(CRL)/442/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on voluntary settlement/MOU; Section 420 IPC; Article 226 Constitution of India; W.P.(CRL) 442/2026; High Court of Delhi; Justice Saurabh Banerjee; FIR No.21/2024 PS Dwarka South; Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; exercise in futility; Rs.32,00,000 settlement; Army Central Welfare Fund contribution; petition allowed and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.21/2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered at PS: Dwarka South under Section 420 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom; petition allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with both parties to contribute Rs.50,000/- each to the Army Central Welfare Fund within four weeks. ¶17

Ranjana Chhabra Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.21/2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered at PS: Dwarka South under Section 420 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, should be quashed in view of the MOU dated 29.01.2026 and the voluntary settlement between the petitioner and respondent no.2.

¶10

Court's answer

Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, since the parties have voluntarily arrived at a settlement and there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the FIR against the petitioner will be an exercise in futility.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is allowed and FIR No.21/2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered at PS: Dwarka South under Section 420 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶17

Key takeaways

The parties shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves.ratio¶16
Considering the public machinery was involved and as a gesture of goodwill, the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 undertake to contribute a sum of Rs.50,000/- each towards the Army Central Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Saurabh Banerjee, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR No.21/2024 dated 10.01.2024, PS: Dwarka South, under Section 420 IPC, founded on a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.01.2026 between the petitioner and respondent no.2: the petitioner had already paid Rs.16,00,000/- out of the total settlement of Rs.32,00,000/- and handed over in Court a Demand Draft/Banker Cheque No.522182 dated 19.01.2026 of Rs.16,00,000/- as full and final settlement, with respondent no.2 affirming she had voluntarily settled and did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings, and the State raising no objection. Following the Supreme Court's law in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (2013) 4 SCC 58, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that since nothing remained to corroborate and prove the prosecution case, continuation of the FIR would be an exercise in futility, and quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom; the parties were directed to remain bound by the settlement terms and each undertook to contribute Rs.50,000/- to the Army Central Welfare Fund within four weeks.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 442/2026

¶4

RANJANA CHHABRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ms. Prasanna, Ms. Avantika Shankar and Mr. Pulkit Jolly, Advocates with petitioner in person (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for State with SI Rajat Malik, PS: Dwarka South

¶7

Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶9

O R D E R % 17.03.2026

¶10

By virtue of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.21/2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered at PS: Dwarka South under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and all proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) dated 29.01.2026 [ Annexure P2 ] arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.2, which is accompanied by their respective proofs of identities.

¶11

Issue notice.

¶12

Learned ASC for the State accepts notice, and submits, that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 19/03/2026 at 13:52:05

¶15

Respondent no.2, present in Court, also accepts notice and affirms the terms of the aforesaid MOU, whereby the petitioner has already paid her a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- out of the total settlement amount of Rs.32,00,000/-, and has further handed over a Demand Draft/ Banker Cheque dated 19.01.2026 bearing No.522182 of Rs.16,00,000/- (ICICI Bank Limited, Branch-Dwarka) in Court to her today as full and final settlement of all her present, past and future claims. She further submits that she has voluntarily settled all her disputes with the petitioner, and that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶16

The petitioner and the respondent no.2, present in Court, as well as their credentials, as on record, have been identified by the IO. 6. Facts disclose that the parties have voluntarily arrived at a settlement, and thus have filed their respective affidavit(s) along with the present petition. As such, the parties shall remain bound by all the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived inter se themselves. Thus, following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raguvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58 , Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 , since there is nothing left to corroborate and prove the case of the prosecution, continuation of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner will be an exercise in futility.

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.21/2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered at PS: Dwarka South under Section 420 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 19/03/2026 at 13:52:05

¶20

Considering the public machinery was involved and as a gesture of goodwill, the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 undertake to contribute a sum of Rs.50,000/- [ Rupees Fifty Thousand Only ] each towards the Army Central Welfare Fund [Account No. 520101236373338 and IFSC Code UBIN0530778], within a period of four weeks .

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶23

MARCH 17, 2026/So

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 19/03/2026 at 13:52:05

Ranjana Chhabra v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Chhabra v. State NCT of Delhi & 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

Sutapa Aich Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Smt Mamta Devi and Anr. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Arshad Hussain Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Umesh Paswan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sushma Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Kamruddin @ Kamru Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Vakil Ahmed and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sanjeev Mahajan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Anil Lumba Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Imran Khan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Pradeep Arora & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) through SHO & Anr.

Nilu Khanna Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Aarush Tewatia Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another