Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Pal Singh vs State & Anr on 11 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4844/2019
SANJAY PAL SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepanshu Badiwal, Mr. Jai
Vardhan, Mr. Navjot Singh,
Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with SI Naveen Dahiya, PS Prashant
Vihar
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.09.2025 CRL.M.A. 26245/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 26244/2025 (for restoration)
4. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the main petition is taken on Board by today itself.
5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4844/2019 & CRL.M.A. 26246/2025 (condonation of delay)
6. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32 Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 1042/20143 registered under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 at P.S. Prashant Vihar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
7. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that in February, 2014, the Petitioner, along with one Pinku, induced the Complainant (now deceased) to purchase the second floor of property No. 67, Gujranwala Town, Part-II, Delhi for INR 97,00,000/-. The Complainant paid INR 10,00,000/- as earnest money on 21st February, 2014. However, the Petitioner failed to produce title documents and was later found to be only a tenant in the said property. As a result, the impugned FIR was lodged. Owing to his non- appearance, the Trial Court declared the Petitioner a Proclaimed Offender on 15th January 2016, and he was thereafter charge-sheeted under Sections 420/174A/34 of the IPC.
8. The quashing of the impugned FIR is sought on the basis of the compromise between the parties which has been duly recorded in order dated 26th August, 2016, wherein the Petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court. The said order reads as follows:
"Arguments on the bail application heard from Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. PP.
I have talked to the parties to bring about settlement about half an hour.
Matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Accused/applicant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant.
It has been agreed that out of the total sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs will be paid by the applicant/accused to the 1 "BNSS"2
"Cr.P.C."3
"impugned FIR"4
"IPC"
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32 complainant today and rest of the amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs will be paid by the applicant in seven installments of Rs. 1 lakh each, which will start from 26th September, 2016.
It has further been agreed between the parties that if the applicant/accused does not comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement, the complainant will be at liberty to move the application for cancellation of the bail of the applicant/accused, as accused had not complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement earlier also.
It has further been agreed between the parties that after receipt of the entire amount of Rs. 10 lakhs by the complainant, he will cooperate the applicant/accused in quashing of the FIR by the Hon'ble High Court.
Today, wife of the applicant/accused has paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs by way of in cash to the son of the complainant which is accepted by him.
Since, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and complainant has no objection on the application of the accused, the application moved by the accused/applicant is allowed.
Applicant/accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond, in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Ld. MM/CMM/duty MM. It is directed that accused will not temper with the record and will not influence the witnesses. He will not do any act which will affect the administration of justice.
With these observations, the bail application stands disposed."
9. In terms of the settlement, a sum of INR 3,00,000/- was handed over in cash to the son of the Complainant (Mr. Mukul Bhatia) who duly accepted the same. The balance sum of INR 7,00,000/- was agreed to be paid in instalments, which have also been duly discharged.
10. Mr. Bhatia, who is present before the Court acknowledges the receipt of the entire amount of INR 10,00,000/-. At this stage, however, he states that he does not wish to consent to the quashing of the FIR, asserting that the payment represents only the principal amount and therefore does not satisfy his grievances.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32
11. When confronted with the categorical stand recorded in the bail order, wherein Mr. Bhatia, agreed on behalf of the Complainant that upon receipt of the full amount he would cooperate with the Petitioner in approaching the High Court for quashing of the FIR, he has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation.
12. At this stage, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's failure to appear in the present proceedings, which led to the chargesheet under Section 174A of IPC, was due to his lack of awareness of these proceedings.
13. The Court has considered the submission of the parties. While the offence under Section 174A of IPC is non-compoundable, Section 420 is compoundable with the leave of the Court and at the instance of the aggrieved party. However, that does not preclude this Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (pari materia Section 528 of BNSS) to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.5 has held as follows:
"11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.
12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an an exercise in futility."
[Emphasis added] 5 (2012) 10 SCC 303 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32
14. Further, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,6 the Supreme Court held as follows:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great 6 (2014) 6 SCC 466 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32 oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. Although the offences under Section 174A of IPC cannot be treated as strictly 'in personam', and it touches upon public concerns rather than being confined to individual grievances, the Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the present case. Respondent No. 2 has unequivocally consented to the quashing of the impugned FIR, as recorded in the bail order, thereby substantially diminishing the likelihood of a successful prosecution. In addition, the full settlement amount has been paid and the parties have previously resolved their dispute amicably. In these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings in the impugned FIR would serve no useful purpose and would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to bring the proceedings to an end.
16. In light of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 1042/2014 and all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.
17. However, since the State machinery was set in motion pursuant to the registration of the FIR and further invoked to secure the Petitioner's presence (pursuant to which Section 174A of IPC was invoked), the ends of justice will be served if the Petitioner is put to certain cost. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed deposit a cost of INR 10,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. Payment proof must be submitted to the concerned SHO, within four weeks.
18. Parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32
19. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2025/ab This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2025 at 21:42:32