Cheating proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS upon genuine settlement and full restitution.

The petitioners—Aanchal Sharma and Kanchan Dwivedi, former employees of Teamlease Services Limited, and Tushar Sharma, Aanchal Sharma’s brother and an alleged beneficiary—sought quashing of FIR No. 0040/2026 registered at Cyber Police Station, South-East, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 420 and 34 IPC.

The FIR alleged that the two former employees accessed the complainant company’s software without authority, altered records, and facilitated unauthorised transfers, including 17 transactions amounting to approximately ₹15 lakh in the name of Tushar Sharma.

During the pendency of investigation, the parties entered into a settlement.

The petitioners paid ₹25 lakh to the complainant company through three demand drafts, and the amount was credited to the company’s account.

The company’s authorised representative confirmed receipt of the entire amount, accepted the petitioners’ apology, stated that the settlement was voluntary and free from coercion, and expressed no objection to quashing of the FIR.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant.

Whether quashing was appropriate when the investigation was still pending and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to give effect to an order under the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 420 and 34 IPC.

The governing principle applied was that, where the dispute has been voluntarily and fully settled, the complainant does not wish to pursue the allegations, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.

The Court verified the settlement through the complainant company’s authorised representative, who was identified by the investigating officer and confirmed receipt of the full ₹25 lakh settlement amount.

The complainant expressly stated that the settlement was voluntary, without pressure, coercion, or undue influence, and raised no objection to quashing the FIR.

In these circumstances, the Court found that the complainant no longer wished to press the allegations and that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Although the investigation remained pending and the petitioners could not rely on compounding at that stage because the charge-sheet had not been filed, the Court exercised its broader inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

The quashing was made subject to the petitioners depositing ₹30,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

The parties were directed to submit the original affidavits and proof of deposit to the concerned SHO/investigating officer within a further two weeks for incorporation into the record.

The petition and pending application were accordingly disposed of.