Pranav Ansal v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & ANR.
$~60 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ PRANAV ANSAL .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Nishaank Mattoo, Mr.
Hitaish Chauhan, Mr.
Rishabh Munjal and Mr.
Devrishi Tyagi, Advocates.
versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Mahavir Jogi, PS Barakhamba Road.
Respondent No.2/ Complainant in person (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 25.04.2025 CRL.M.A. 7968/2025 (Exemption) 1.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.
The application stands disposed of.
3.
The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.78/2022 dated 09.06.2022, registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for offences under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4.
The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2, who had approached the company of the petitioner to book a flat in their project namely 'Green Escape Apartments'.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 5.
Respondent No. 2 had invested an amount of ₹10,19,377/-
in the said project, pursuant to which a builder buyer agreement dated 26.08.2013 was signed. As per the agreement the flat was to be handed over within a maximum period of 42 months. However, to the shock of the petitioner neither any tower had been constructed on the said land nor any foundation had been laid. 6.
The petitioner tried contacting the officials of the company, but no response was received from them. This culminated into the present FIR.
7.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute has been settled between the parties vide settlement agreement dated 07.03.2025.
8.
By order dated 07.04.2025, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) recorded the compromise / settlement between the Respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioner. The statement of the Respondent No.2/complainant was also recorded by the learned Joint Registrar stating that he has amicably settled the dispute as per the settlement.
9.
The Respondent No.2/complainant appears through video conferencing and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. He submits that he has received the entire settlement amount and has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed..
10.
Offences under Sections 420/406 of the IPC are compoundable in nature.
11.
Undisputedly, the complainant has received the entire settlement amount and is satisfied with the same. He also has no objection if the dispute is put to rest.
12.
This Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by relegating the parties to the learned Trial Court for The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. filing an application to compound the offence.
13.
Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
14.
In view of the above, FIR No. 78/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 15.
The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J APRIL 25, 2025/DU The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.