Mohit Gupta & ANR. v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3864/2025 MOHIT GUPTA & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Petitioners in person with Counsel.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for State with Mr. Adietya Khatri, Advocate and SI Anubhav, PS: Shakarpur.

Mr. Keshav Kumar Verma and Mr. Kunal Verma, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025 1.

Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0135/2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) BNS, 2023, registered at PS: Shakarpur, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, in terms of Memorandum of Understanding cum Compromise Deeds dated 10.05.2025 and 04.06.2025.

2.

As per the submissions made, there was a dispute inter se Petitioners and Respondent No.2, who were Directors / share-holder in Private Limited Company from which the Petitioners had resigned. They owed Rs.63 lacs to Respondent No.2.

3.

Therefore, vide MoU dated 10.05.2025, Petitioners and Respondent No.2 agreed for transfer of one property to Respondent No.2, which was implemented and property was transferred in the name of Respondent No.2‟s The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

wife to adjust the settled amount of Rs.45 lacs. 4.

However, subsequently, Respondent No.2 claimed that the sale value of the property in question was much less than that and therefore, they entered into another Compromise Deed dated 04.06.2025, whereby the value of the property in question was assessed as Rs.36 lacs, but the parties agreed to settle it for another Rs.5,00,000/-, which were duly paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2.

5.

Now, when the matter has been fixed for quashing of FIR, which is supported by Affidavit of Respondent No.2 as well, objection is taken that the value of the property is much less than the settled amount of Rs.36 lacs. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is not inclined to come forward for recording of statement.

6.

From the above narrations of two compromise deeds, it is evident that the Complainant after making due assessment, had arrived at the settlement and the sale deed of the property in question has also been made in favour of Respondent No.2‟s wife, in terms of the Compromise Deed. 7.

It clearly reflects that the value of property may not be what was estimated by Respondent No.2, but that cannot be a ground to retract from the settlement. It is quite evident from these two Compromise Deeds that the parties have voluntarily settled the matter and disputes. 8.

Respondent No.2 has not ground for retraction, in terms of Memorandum of Understanding cum Compromise Deeds dated 10.05.2025 and 04.06.2025.

9.

Consequently, FIR No.0135/2025 under Sections 318(4)/3(5) BNS, 2023, registered at PS: Shakarpur, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.170223 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

10.

Writ Petition along with pending Applications is disposed of. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

DECEMBER 17, 2025/R The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.