High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/691/2023

Yogesh Sethi & ORS. v. The State Gnct Of Delhli

2025-11-13Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula4 pages

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 691/2023, CRL.M.A. 6320/2023 YOGESH SETHI & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Umesh Chandra Sharma, Mr.

R.K. Jain, Mr. Peeyush Kaushik, Mr. Vikas K Chadha, Advs.

versus THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Adv. SI Manisha Ps Rani Bagh Mr. Shamshad Alam, Adv.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 13.11.2025 1.

The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 1331/2022 dated 29th November, 2022, registered at P.S. Rani Bagh, Delhi under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties.

On 17th December, 2024, on the basis of agreement dated 07th November, 2024, executed between Yogesh Sethi (Petitioner No.1) and 1 "BNSS"

2 "CrPC"

3 "IPC"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, the impugned FIR as well as consequential proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed qua the Petitioner No.1 only.

Subsequently, the Complainant has now executed settlement agreement with both Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, namely Karan Sharin and Anita Arora. Copies of the said settlement agreements are taken on the record.

The Complainant, who is present before the Court in person and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, identifies her signatures on the aforesaid Settlement/Agreements and states that she has entered into the settlement out of her own free will, volition and without any coercion and has received the entire amount under the Settlement/Agreement. She further states that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed against Petitioners No. 2 and 3. 5.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement as well as the statements made in Court today.

In Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Anr.4, it has been held as under:

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: xxx 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have 4 (2017) 9 SCC 641.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

settled the dispute;

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;" 7.

Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.5, it has been held as under:

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences Under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;" 8.

In view of the above, and since no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the present criminal proceedings, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed against Petitioners No.2 and 3 as well.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with any pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 13, 2025 Pallavi 5 (2019) 5 SCC 403.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.