Facts
Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner induced him to invest ₹60 lakh in a property, promising him a share in its second floor.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras 6.1–6.7After learning that the floor had been sold to another person, respondent No. 2 confronted the petitioner, who issued four cheques totalling ₹42.5 lakh; the cheques were dishonoured.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras 6.1–6.7An FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, and a chargesheet was filed.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras 6.1–6.7During the proceedings, the parties executed a settlement deed dated 24 September 2026, under which the petitioner agreed to pay ₹60 lakh in full and final settlement. The amount was paid, and respondent No. 2 stated that he did not wish to pursue the matter.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras 6.8–10Issues
Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC should be quashed in view of the parties’ settlement and payment of the agreed amount.
Source reference: p. 4, paras 11, 13–14Whether quashing should be made subject to payment of costs.
Source reference: p. 4, paras 12, 15–16Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS to seek quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Source reference: p. 1, para 1The FIR alleged offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras 1, 6.1The judgment cites no precedent or elaborated legal test for quashing on settlement; it records the Court’s determination that, in the circumstances, there was no impediment to allowing the petition.
Source reference: p. 4, para 13Reasoning
The Court noted that the parties had resolved their dispute through a written settlement, the petitioner had paid the full ₹60 lakh, and respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt and his wish not to pursue the case.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras 6.8–10In light of those circumstances, the Court found no impediment to quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Source reference: p. 4, paras 11, 13–14The State sought costs, citing the FIR’s date and the nature of the offences; the Court made quashing conditional on payment of ₹20,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Source reference: p. 4, paras 12, 15Holding
The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0318/2024, registered at PS Kirti Nagar under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings.
The order was subject to the petitioner paying ₹20,000 in costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and submitting proof of payment to the Court and the concerned IO/SHO.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras 15–17Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Indian Penal Code, 18602
Original Court PDF
Ankit SharmavsState Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
