₹24-Crore Handset Deal: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Dixon, Padget On Settlement, Grants Anticipatory Bail To Three NXTCELL Associates

FIR No. 285/2026 was registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on a complaint by Air Communication Services Private Limited (ACPL).

The complaint alleged that NXTCELL India Pvt. Ltd., through Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek, induced ACPL to fund procurement of 17,730 Alcatel handsets from Padget Electronics Private Limited.

ACPL alleged that its payment of approximately ₹24.16 crore was used to clear NXTCELL’s earlier dues to Padget, that some handsets were of Dubai rather than Indian specification, and that NXTCELL did not lift the stock as assured.

The investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

Dixon Technologies, Padget, Pankaj Sharma and Himanshu Maheshwari sought quashing of the FIR; they later entered into a settlement with ACPL on 28 September 2026.

Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek separately sought anticipatory bail.

They had joined the investigation, and the State submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserves the High Court’s inherent power, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, a High Court may quash non-compoundable proceedings where the dispute is predominantly civil or commercial, the parties have settled, and continuation would not serve the ends of justice; serious offences and economic offences affecting the State’s financial or economic well-being generally stand differently.

For anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and risks such as absconding or interference with evidence, relying on Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 291, and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.

The Court also referred to Pinki v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025:DHC:8748, concerning the relevance of cooperation and documentary evidence to the need for arrest.

The Court treated the dispute between ACPL and the settling petitioners as arising from private commercial dealings, with no public money or statutory body involved.

ACPL had settled the inter se dispute, consented to quashing, and filed an affidavit of no objection; the settlement also addressed the Dubai-specification stock and required continued cooperation with the investigation.

Applying the settlement-quashing principles, the Court found no impediment to quashing the FIR qua those parties, while making the relief conditional on compliance with the settlement and cooperation with the EOW.

As to the bail applicants, the State confirmed that they had joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required.

The case primarily depended on documentary material, including invoices, purchase orders and bank transfers; the Court therefore found anticipatory bail appropriate, subject to conditions protecting the investigation and witnesses.

Since the FIR had been quashed qua the relevant petitioners in the later petitions, the earlier quashing petitions had become infructuous.

It allowed the anticipatory-bail applications of Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek, directing release in the event of arrest on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, no foreign travel without prior permission, and no contact with or influence on the complainant, its officers or witnesses.

CRL.M.C. 4731/2026 and CRL.M.C. 4746/2026 were disposed of as infructuous.