Mahak Chaturvedi & Ors. vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court



$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010533182026
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 & Crl.M.A.34731/2026
+
MAHAK CHATURVEDI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kaartik Chhabra and Mr. Sahil
Shori, Advocates.
versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State along
with SI Pinki Jakhar, PS Lajpat
Nagar.
Mr. Aman Bidhuri, Adv. along with
respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 582 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner is seeking quashing of
FIR No. 134/2026, dated 04.04.2026, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, South-
East (Delhi), under Sections 318(4)/336(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (corresponding to Sections 420/465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860),
and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of Settlement-
cum-Memorandum of Understanding, dated 10.10.2026, entered into among
the petitioners and respondent no. 2 (complainant). The same has been
appended as Annexure P-2 to the present petition.

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42



2. The aforesaid FIR, registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2,
alleges that the petitioners (employees of Orane International Institute), on
the pretext of admitting respondent no. 2 to the Orane International Institute,
forged her signatures on the loan application, and used the same to take a
loan.
3. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 have settled their dispute via the
aforesaid Settlement-cum-Memorandum of Understanding. The same reads
as under:


Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42





Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42




4. As contemplated by Clause 4 of the aforesaid Settlement-cum-
Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioners handed over a bank draft of
Rs. 57,500 to respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2, in addition to confirming
the receipt of the same, also affirms the receipt of Rs. 57,500 paid to her at
the time of execution of the aforesaid Settlement-cum-Memorandum of
Understanding.
5. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are present in Court and have

been duly identified by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO).
6. This Court takes note of the fact that the disputes between the parties
are purely private in nature and there is no public element involved. Further,
respondent no. 2, the only person aggrieved, has settled the matter with the
petitioner; the alleged loan account has been closed; and the entire
compensation, as referred to in Settlement-cum-Memorandum of

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42



Understanding, stands paid.
7. In this regard, 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
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. ”

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42



(emphasis supplied)
8. 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
. ”
(emphasis supplied)
9. The Supreme Court in K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana , 2024
INSC 750 , while quashing the FIR alleging forgery on a compromise,
observed as follows:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42



“ 19. This Court found that though the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the IPC was compoundable under sub-section (2) of
Section 320 CrPC with the leave of the Court, the offence of
forgery was not included as one of the compoundable offences
.
However, the Court found that in such cases the principle
enunciated in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana
and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675] should be applied.
20. This Court specifically noted that though it is alleged that
certain documents had been created by the appellant therein to
avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was
entitled, the power of quashing could be exercised.
This Court
found that in view of a compromise arrived at between the
Company and the Bank, it was a fit case where a technicality
should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the
criminal proceedings. This Court found that in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, continuance of the same
would be an exercise in futility.
”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment in
allowing the present petition. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the
parties, and considering the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, FIR
No. 134/2026, dated 04.04.2026, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, South-East
(Delhi), under Sections 318(4)/336(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, stand quashed.
11. The present petition, along with the pending application, stands
allowed in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026/ at/vk




Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8282/2026 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:51:42