Sangeeta & ANR. v. State NCT Of Delhi And ANR

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3753/2025 SANGEETA & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Pravesh Dabas, Mr. Nitesh Khapra and Mr. Kunal Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for R-1.

SI Satish Kumar, P.S. Prashant Vihar.

Ms. Chinki Rani, Ms. Prerna Sharma and Mr. Sunny Vashisht, Advocates for R-2 with Respondent No. 2 (inPerson).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 30.05.2025 1.

The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 349/20173 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604, registered at P.S. Prashant Vihar and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

The impugned FIR was registered based on a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, who alleged that the Petitioners approached him and 1 "BNSS"

2 "Cr.P.C."

3 "the impugned FIR"

4 "IPC"

CRL.M.C. 3753/2025 Page 1 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

asked for a sum of INR 1.5 crores, claiming they were in need of funds. They represented that Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of Plot Nos. 63-64, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Pocket B-3, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi-110085. The Petitioners assured him that upon receiving the stated amount, they would execute the requisite documents concerning the said property and deliver its possession to the Complainant by 30th September, 2013. In this regard, Petitioner No. 1 executed an agreement dated 31st December, 2012, affirming that she would hand over possession of the subject property to the Complainant for a consideration of INR 1.5 crores in cash. Additionally, the Petitioners provided the original sale deeds pertaining to the property. The Complainant further alleged that despite having paid the entire agreed amount of INR 1.5 crores, the Petitioners neither executed the necessary documents nor handed over possession of the property to date. When the Complainant approached the Petitioners, they started threatening him of dire consequences. 3.

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 on their own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence before the Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 9th May, 2025. As per the terms of the settlement, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the present case.

4.

On 26th May, 2025, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar wherein he confirmed the receipt of payment as per the terms of settlement and nothing remains to be paid by the Petitioners. 5.

In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No. 2, who is present before this Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, confirms his CRL.M.C. 3753/2025 Page 2 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

statement and gives no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. An affidavit to this effect is also on record.

6.

The Court has considered the afore-noted. It is pertinent to note that the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are compoundable, albeit with the permission of the Court, and only at the instance of the aggrieved parties. However, that does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly, Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice. 7.

Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact that the aggrieved parties have amicably settled the matter, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, as the continuance of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and impede the ends of justice. 8.

However, since the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put to cost. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 349/2017 as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of a cost of INR 10,000/- each by the Petitioners to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from today. The proof of payment of cost be submitted with the concerned IO. 9.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 30, 2025/as CRL.M.C. 3753/2025 Page 3 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.