Mohit Goel & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010482572026
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026, Crl.M.A.31411/2026
+
MOHIT GOEL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv., Ms.
Akanksha, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr.
Dhruv Tomar, Mr. Suraj Singh and
Mr. Arpan, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mr. Mayank Chaudhary
and Mohd. Naved, Advs.
Mr. Yash Chaturvedi, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ pari materia to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “ CrPC ”)], the petitioner
seeks quashing of FIR No. 314/2020, dated 05.08.2020, registered at P.S.
Dwarka South, Delhi, under Sections 376/328/354(A)/506/509 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”), and all the proceeding emanating
therefrom, on the basis of Settlement Agreement, dated 22.09.2026, entered
into between the parties. The same is appended as Annexure-P4 to the
present petition.
2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent no.2
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 1 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

against one Vikas Kumar Mittal. A chargesheet was filed against Vikas
Kumar Mittal under Sections 376/328/354(A)/506/509 of the IPC.
Subsequently, a supplementary chargesheet was filed against petitioner nos.
1 and 2 and Vineet Kumar under Sections 506/509/120B of the IPC. Further,
by virtue of the same supplementary chargesheet, Section 174A of the IPC
was also invoked against Vikas Kumar Mittal, in addition to the offences
already alleged.
3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners, as set out in the
status report, is that petitioner no. 1 (business rival of Vikas Kumar Mittal)
conspired with petitioner no. 2 and another accused, namely, Vineet Kumar,
to have respondent no. 2 (complainant) threatened over the telephone in the
name of Vikas Kumar Mittal. The object behind this act was allegedly to
secure Vikas Kumar Mittal’s arrest and enhance his punishment.
4. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC), South West District,

Dwarka Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 25.08.2026, on an application
moved by the State and supported by respective Ld. Counsel for all the
accused and the prosecutrix, separated the trial of the petitioners and Vineet
Kumar from the trial of Vikas Kumar Mittal. While doing so, Ld. ASJ
(FTSC) (RC) recorded that the offences alleged against the petitioners and
Vineet Kumar have no connection with the offences alleged against Vikas
Kumar Mittal, i.e. , the alleged commission of rape, in the following terms:
“ 4. The record reflects that originally accused Vikas Kumar Mittal
was chargesheeted U/S 376/328/354A/509/34 IPC and
subsequently, after the completion of investigation U/S 173(8)
Cr.P.C., the remaining accused persons namely Sumit Yadav,
Mohit Goel and Vineet Kumar were chargesheeted for the
offences u/S 120B/506/509 IPC, which have no connection with
the original offence i.e. alleged committal of rape by the accused
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 2 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

Vikas Kumar Mittal
5. Furthermore, it is a well settled principle of law that even if the
conditions provided in Section 223 Cr.P.C are fulfilled, the court
may direct separation/segregation of trial
.
if a joint trial would
cause delay, unnecessary waste of judicial time and
confusion/prejudice to the co-accused persons, who had allegedly
committed only a minor offence
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
5. Respondent no. 2 (complainant), who is present in person, has been
duly identified by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO). Petitioner no. 2,
who is also present in person, and petitioner no. 1, who has joined the
proceedings virtually, have also been identified by the IO.
6. In view of the aforesaid order, dated 25.08.2026, the petitioners are
not accused of rape or any sexual offence. Rather, Ld. ASJ (FTSC) (RC)
invokes Section 223 of the CrPC in favour of the petitioners and implicitly
classifies the allegations as “ minor offences ”.
7. Accordingly, the offences alleged against the petitioners and Vineet
Kumar are under Sections 506/509/120B of the IPC. The following can be
noted qua these offences:
Section (Act) Offence Compoundable
506 ( IPC ) Criminal Intimidation Compoundable, as per
Section 320(1) of the CrPC
509 ( IPC ) Criminal Intimidation by
Compoundable with
Anonymous
permission of the Court, as
Communication
per Section 320(2) of the
CrPC
120B ( IPC ) Criminal Conspiracy Non-Compoundable

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 3 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

8. It is pointed out that the petitioners’ application for compounding
under Section 320 of the CrPC is pending before the trial Court. However,
the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC would prevent the
trial Court from recording a compromise and compounding the matter qua
the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for
exercise of its inherent power.
9. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not heinous in nature
and are largely compoundable. This Court is of the opinion that it would be
in the interests of justice to quash the FIR qua the petitioners under Section
120B of the IPC.
10. What further weighs with the Court is that the petitioners and
respondent no. 2 have entered into the aforesaid Settlement Agreement,
which reads as follows:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 4 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 5 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

11. During the course of hearing, respondent no. 2 affirms that she
entered into the Settlement Agreement with the petitioners voluntarily out of
her own free will and volition, without any pressure or undue influence. To
that effect, she has submitted an affidavit dated 28.01.2026, which reads as
under:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 6 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

12. It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein it was observed as
under:
“ 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of
criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in
the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an
end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the
ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously
endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not
safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in
law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental
depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special
statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the
settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly
and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled
all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court
may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 7 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each
case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category
can be prescribed.
”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The principles established in Gian Singh (supra) were further
crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 .
Paragraph 29 of the same reads 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:
*
29.2. 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.
*
29.4. 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
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases . ”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 8 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

(emphasis supplied)
14. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat , (2017) 9
SCC 641 , summarised the position qua compromise quashing in the
following manner:
“ 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of
justice. The provision does not confer new powers
. It only recognises
and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
*
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice
would justify the exercise of the inherent power
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a
.
wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice,
or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court
.
*
As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a
civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise
of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.7.
Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute
16.8.
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
15. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment in

allowing the present petition.
16. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the parties, and
considering the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the present
petition is allowed, and FIR No. 314/2020, dated 05.08.2020, registered at
P.S. Dwarka South, Delhi, under Sections 376/328/354(A)/506/509 IPC and
all the proceeding emanating therefrom, qua the present petitioners, stand
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 9 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51

quashed.
17. Considering that substantial judicial time and state resources have
been expended pursuant to the subject FIR, the petitioners agree to pay
cumulative costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 50,000/-
shall be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC)
and Rs.50,000/- to the Delhi High Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid
Society.
18. It is clarified that this order would not ensure any benefit to other co-
accused. It is further clarified that this order shall not affect the trial of Vikas
Kumar Mittal.
19. The petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of in the
above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
cl/vk
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/






Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 7512/2026 Page 10 of 10

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
11:54:51