Pratiksha Bhardwaj v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5750/2025 & CRL.M.A. 24654/2025 PRATIKSHA BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Through:
Mr.Mohit Gupta, Adv.
versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP SI Ashish, PS OIA Ms.Abhilasha Kaur, in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
O R D E R
% 21.08.2025 1.
Petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of an FIR qua her, bearing No.0856/2022 dated 18.12.2022 for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 the IPC, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
2.
The COO of ESSCI filed an FIR against the petitioner, Senior Executive (Affiliations), for colluding to certify unregistered assessor candidates by charging ₹10,000 each, retaining ₹5,000, and concealing 222 entries, causing a loss of ₹12.14 lakh. FIR was registered and investigation commenced.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the dispute was civil in nature and in any case, the parties have now amicably settled even that also vide Settlement Agreement dated 15.07.2025. He would further submit that the complaint/FIR, at the relevant time, being false, frivolous, and motivated CRL.M.C. 5750/2025 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.
deserves to be quashed even otherwise.
4.
Respondent no.2 is present in Court and upon interaction, she candidly submits that the matter was civil and has been amicably settled. She submits that the dispute was unnecessarily given a criminal colour due to her lack of understanding of criminal law. In the premise, she further affirms that she does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners. 5.
The learned counsel for the Respondent no.2, and the learned APP for the State concur with the factum of the compromise between the parties and convey their no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 6.
In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the case file.
7.
Having heard and considering the nature of the dispute, it appears to be private and personal, arising from certain financial transactions. On a plain reading, it is otherwise arguable whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are made out under the Penal sections invoked. 8.
Be that as it may, in view of the settlement agreement executed between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution, and the continuance of proceedings would be nothing but an exercise in futility.
9.
Continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law, and place an unnecessary burden on the judicial system. In contrast, quashing the FIR in question would rather promote peace and harmony between the parties, particularly as the complainant does not wish to pursue the case further.
10.
Accordingly, invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR in CRL.M.C. 5750/2025 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.
question. Reference in this context may also be had to judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. 11.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR 0856/2022 dated 18.12.2022 for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 the IPC, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
12.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J AUGUST 21, 2025 RN CRL.M.C. 5750/2025 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.