Siddarth Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi Through Eow & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 03.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010529412026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026, CRL.M.A. 34508/2026
SIDDARTH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Mr.
Aadhyaa Khanna and Ms. Miheeka
Kapur, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH EOW & ANR......Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC, Mr. Kshitiz
Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish
Dhawan and Mr. Gourav Singh, Advs.
for State.
SI Naveen Kumar, PS EOW
Mr. Amit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Yudhister Singh and Mr. Saud Khan,
Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 181/2025, dated
19.12.2025, registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, under
Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”), and all
the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of a Settlement
Agreement, dated 17.08.2026, entered into between the petitioner and
respondent no. 2. The same has been appended as Annexure P-2 to the present

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 1 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

petition.
2. It is alleged in the aforesaid FIR that, in 2007, the petitioner
misrepresented himself as a real estate development consultant and land
aggregator, and received a sum of Rs. 4,55,60,000 from the respondent no. 2
for purchasing agricultural land in Shimla District, Himachal Pradesh, which
was to be transferred to the respondent no. 2 upon obtaining permission under
Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.
Out of the said amount, the petitioner refunded only Rs. 48,72,460 and
allegedly retained Rs. 4,06,87,540. Thereafter, an Agreement to Sell dated
04.05.2009 was executed in respect of land situated at Sub-Tehsil Junga,
Shimla (hereinafter “ Junga Land ”), and possession thereof was delivered to
the respondent no. 2. However, the requisite permission was never applied
for, and the sale deed was never executed.
3. The aforesaid Settlement Agreement requires the petitioner (first party
therein) to undertake the following obligations:


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 2 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

4. It is stated that the petitioner (first party therein) has handed over the
original title documents and executed an Irrevocable Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) in favour of Mr. Kashmir Singh to execute the sale deed. The
sum alleged to be retained by the petitioner, i.e. , Rs. 4,06,87,540, is
considered as consideration towards the purchase of Junga Land. In view of
this understanding, the Settlement Agreement records as under:

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 3 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

5. It is also taken note that the Settlement Agreement also covers another
parcel of land situated at Mauja Dhar, Tutikandi, Shimla, which was the

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 4 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

subject of a separate Agreement to Sell dated 11.05.2009 with M/s Ecru
Builders Pvt. Ltd. (third party therein). The same is not the subject matter of
the aforesaid FIR.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 submit
that all disputes between the parties stand resolved by way of the Settlement
Agreement. The petitioner, who has joined the proceedings virtually, and the
respondent no.2, who is present in Court, affirm the factum of the settlement.
The said petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have been duly identified by the
Investigating Officer (IO), who is present in Court.
7. Learned ASC submits that the dispute between the parties is purely
commercial and stands resolved, and there is no impediment to quashing the
FIR on the basis of the inter se settlement.
8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court has 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. … 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 that on the
face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 5 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

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.
*
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any court . … However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. … In other words, the
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse
of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding
.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. The principles were thereafter crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State
of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 . In paragraph 29, the Supreme Court observed
as under:
“ 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

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 6 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

aforesaid two objectives.
*
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominantly 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.
”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 14 SCC 531, it was
observed as under:
“ 19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 CrPC
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences “compoundable” within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court
under Section 482 CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
Section 320 CrPC. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide
amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the
society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the
victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
”
(emphasis supplied)

11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Reverend Rockes Barnabass

Sandhu v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , 2026:DHC:5932 , while dealing with

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 7 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

allegations of a commercial nature, quashed an FIR under Sections 420 and
406 of the IPC, after taking note of the fact that these offences are
compoundable in nature.
12. In the circumstances, as jointly prayed, FIR No. 181/2025, dated
19.12.2025, registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, under
Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom, stand quashed.
13. The parties are held bound down to the Settlement Agreement dated
17.08.2026.
14. It is noticed that the petitioner, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the petition,
avers and undertakes as under:
“ 19. That in furtherance of the foregoing, the Petitioner by way of the
settlement agreement has agreed to transfer the land parcels in favor of
Respondent No. 2 company, thereby putting a complete quietus to the
dispute forming part of the impugned FIR. Further, the Petitioner
submits that he has already handed over the physical and original title
deeds of the subject property to Respondent No. 2. However, the
execution of formal title transfer documents, including the Sale Deed, in
favour of Respondent No.2 remains pending. For this purpose, at the
request of the Respondent No. 2 Company, the Petitioner has executed a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 17.08.2026 duly apostilled on
28th September 2026 by the Secretary/Deputy of State of North Carolina,
USA that he will hand over to Respondent No.2 at the time of hearing of
this Joint Quashing Petition. That in the event that the title transfer
cannot be completed through the mechanism of the said executed and
duly apostilled SPA, solely for want of presence of the Petitioner, the
Petitioner hereby undertakes to personally appear before the concerned
Sub- Registrar where the land is so situated and execute the necessary
title transfer documents in favour of Respondent No. 2. That the
Respondent No. 2 shall give an advance notice of sixty (60) days to the
Petitioner to make himself available before the concerned Sub-Registrar
for the said purpose. That the Petitioner shall make himself available in
India for a period of 10 (Ten) business days to complete the formalities
with respect to the title transfer if required, and not thereafter.

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 8 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52

20. That In the event that the land cannot be transferred solely on the
basis of the SPA dated 17.08.2026 being rejected by the concerned
Sub-Registrar for want of the presence of the Petitioner, and the
Petitioner does not make himself personally available despite
Respondent No.2’s clear advance notice of sixty (60) days to the
Petitioner to personally appear and be present before the concerned Sub-
Registrar where the land is so situated to necessitate the transfer, then
Respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to restore this very Crl M.C No. 2191
of 2026 to its original position/ number. ”

15. The petitioner shall remain bound by the aforesaid undertaking.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the legality of the

proposed transfer, including any requirement/permission required under
Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972
and/or any other local law. The parties shall necessarily comply with the
applicable local laws.
17. Since considerable State resources have been consumed on account of
registration of the subject FIR, the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 agree to
pay costs of Rs.25,000 each to the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee (DHCLSC).
18. It is agreed that the costs will be deposited within a period of four
weeks from today. Let proof of deposit of costs be filed in the registry of this
Court.
19. The petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of in
the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ cl/vk

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3436/2026 Page 9 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:26:52