Krishan Aggarwal & Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010510372026
+ CRL.M.C. 7968/2026, CRL.M.A.33291/2026
KRISHAN AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. P. S. Singhal, Mr. Rakshit Gupta
and Mr. Aaditya Singh Rajawat,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.
Mr. Soutik Banerjee and Mr. Pankaj
Gupta, Advocates for R-2 along with
R-2 in person.
SI Kapil Beniwal, PS Punjabi Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeks quashing of FIR No.44/2023 dated
21.01.2023 registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh under Section 387 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom.
2. The present petition is founded on a settlement agreement dated
28.09.2026 between the petitioners and the respondent no.2. The same
reads as under:-
Page 1 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
Page 2 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
Page 3 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
Page 4 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
Page 5 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
Page 6 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
Page 7 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
3. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by
the respondent no. 2, pursuant to an order passed under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. As noticed, the said FIR came to be registered under Section
387 of the IPC. The FIR alleges that the petitioners, who have known
Respondent No. 2 and his family members for the last 17-18 years and had
an occasion to work together, demanded approximately Rs. 10 crores from
him and his three brothers.
4. It was alleged in the FIR that on 27.07.2022, an extortion letter was
received by one of the employees of the respondent no. 2. The letter,
purportedly addressed by one Mr. Ramesh Kumar to the respondent no. 2
demanded Rs.10 crores and threatened the respondent no.2 and his brothers
with false cases if the said demand was not met.
5. The police report/chargesheet was thereafter filed under Section 387
IPC against the petitioner no.1 alone, whereas the petitioner nos.2 and 3
were placed in Column No.12.
Page 8 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
6. However, thereafter vide order dated 09.04.2026, the learned trial
Court, on a protest petition filed by the respondent no.2, directed further
investigation and summoned the petitioner nos.2 and 3 as accused. The said
order has been assailed by the petitioner no. 2 in revisional proceedings
before the learned trial court.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and by the
respondent no.2, who appears in person, that by way of the aforesaid
settlement agreement dated 28.09.2026, the parties have settled the matter
and they have no surviving claim or grievance against each other.
8. The respondent no.2, who is present in Court, submits that he has
consented to the quashing of the subject FIR and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom. He submits that the same has been done
with a view to put a quietus to the matter and without any undue influence
or coercion. The respondent no.2 and the petitioners have been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer, who is also present in Court.
9. Ordinarily, an accusation of extortion cannot be treated as a private
dispute. This Court is conscious that it must guard against the closure of
such matters by way of a private settlement, particularly, where the threat
alleged was of implication in false cases. However, having heard the
petitioners and the respondent no.2 and, having examined the record, I am
of the view that the present case is one where inherent powers can be
exercised by this Court for quashing of the aforesaid FIR in view of the
following circumstances:
i. The allegations arise out of the concerned relationship between two
families who have had the occasion to work together;
ii. The alleged demand was never met, no money or property was
Page 9 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
delivered and no act of violence is alleged;
iii. The letter was addressed to the complainant, who set the law in
motion and he affirms that the settlement is voluntary and that no
consideration has passed; and
iv. The trial in the matter has still not commenced. The complainant and
the family members are unwilling to support the prosecution, and
subjecting the parties to a protracted trial would be an exercise in
futility.
10. It is important to refer to the following observations of the Supreme
Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466:
27. At this juncture, we would also like to add that the timing of settlement
would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after
the alleged commission of the offence when the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be
after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous
paragraph. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been
framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However,
at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the IO under Section 173
CrPC is also placed before the Court it would become the bounden duty of the
Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the
medical evidence relating to injury, etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect,
however, would be examined along with another important consideration,
namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair
or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and
whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the
answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case
for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at
between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be
served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would
end in acquittal, in any case.
11. Considering the circumstances, the present petition is allowed;
accordingly, FIR No.44/2023 dated 21.01.2023 registered at P.S. Punjabi
Bagh under Sections 387 of the IPC, 1860 and all consequential
Page 10 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42
proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application
also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/r
Page 11 of 11
CRL.M.C. 7968/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:07:42