Disposed¶24

Raj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC12 May 2026CRL.M.C./7029/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 7029/2024 & CRL. M.A. 4743/2026; Raj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.; Madhu Jain, J.; quashing of FIR No. 389/2014 dated 27.03.2014, P.S. Bhajanpura; Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC; chargesheet 21.08.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma; death of complainant 16.04.2020 COVID-19; consent of son/legal heir respondent no. 3 Shiv Narayan Singh; free will, no pressure, coercion or threat; MOU dated 29.08.2023; total settlement Rs. 52,00,000/-; balance Rs. 6,00,000/- paid by Demand Draft No. 544040 dated 30.04.2026 Axis Bank Ltd.; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition disposed of on 12.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 389/2014 registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi (Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom; petition disposed of. ¶24

Raj Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 389/2014 registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi (Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom; petition disposed of.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 389/2014 dated 27.03.2014 registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, may be quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶11

Court's answer

Respondent No. 3 categorically stated, on a query made by the Court, that he entered into the compromise out of his own free will and without any pressure, coercion, or threat, and therefore has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

As the parties have amicably resolved their disputes out of their own free will and without any coercion, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings; it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶19

Key takeaways

There is no legal impediment to the quashing of the FIR in question.ratio¶22
FIR bearing No. 389/2014, registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on settlement — Delhi High Court (Madhu Jain, J.), by order dated 12.05.2026 in CRL.M.C. 7029/2024, quashed FIR No. 389/2014 dated 27.03.2014, Police Station Bhajanpura (Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC), and all consequential proceedings. The complainant (respondent no. 2) had expired on 16.04.2020; his son (respondent no. 3) confirmed before the Court that the compromise under MOU dated 29.08.2023 (total settled amount Rs. 52,00,000/-) was entered into out of his own free will, without pressure, coercion or threat, and raised no objection to quashing. The balance Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid by Demand Draft No. 544040 dated 30.04.2026 (Axis Bank Ltd.) towards full and final settlement. Holding that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings and that there was no legal impediment, the Court quashed the FIR and disposed of the petition.

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 7029/2024 & CRL. M.A. 4743/2026

¶4

RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rohit Kheriwal, Mr. Aditya Sagar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶9

O R D E R % 12.05.2026

¶10

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.C. 7029/2024 & CRL. M.A. 4743/2026

¶11

By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing No. 389/2014 dated 27.03.2014, registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC' ) and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶12

The Petitioner is present through video conferencing. Respondent No. 3 is physically present before this Court.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 389/2014 was registered on 27.03.2014 at Police Station Bhajanpura under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC

¶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 18/05/2026 at 11:25:49

¶16

on the complaint of respondent no. 2 against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 21.08.2018, the chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no. 2/complainant expired on 16.04.2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present petition has thereafter been pursued through respondent no. 3, who is the son of the deceased complainant and is also connected with the present case. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably settled their disputes vide MOU dated 29.08.2023 for a total settled amount of Rs. 52,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Only) outside the Court.

¶17

On a query made by this Court, Respondent No. 3 has categorically stated that he has entered into the compromise out of his own free will and without any pressure, coercion, or threat. Therefore, he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the parties submits that a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs Only) towards the settlement amount has been paid today by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 544040 dated 30.04.2026, issued by Axis Bank Ltd., in favour of Shiv Narayan Singh/respondent no. 3. It is further submitted that the said amount constitutes the balance payment towards full and final settlement between the parties and, after receipt of the said amount, nothing remains to be settled between them, as the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes.

¶19

In view of the above, as the parties have amicably resolved their disputes out of their own free will and without any coercion, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings; rather, the same would only create further acrimony between them. It would, therefore, be in the interest

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 18/05/2026 at 11:25:49

¶22

of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. There is no legal impediment to the quashing of the FIR in question.

¶23

Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 389/2014, registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶24

The petition stands disposed of.

¶25

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶26

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶27

MAY 12, 2026/PRG/rm

¶28

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 18/05/2026 at 11:25:49

Raj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Amit Kumra & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs State -Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mithlesh Jha and Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

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

Naushad Ahmad and Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.