Delhi HC Quashes FIR Over Alleged ₹10-Crore Extortion Demand After Settlement; No Money Was Paid, No Violence Alleged

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 44/2023 registered under Section 387 IPC and all consequential proceedings.

The FIR followed a complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the petitioners demanded approximately ₹10 crore and threatened him and his brothers with false cases; an extortion letter was also alleged to have been received by an employee.

The police filed a chargesheet against Petitioner No. 1, while Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were placed in Column No. 12. On Respondent No. 2’s protest petition, the trial court directed further investigation and summoned Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3; that order was under challenge in revision.

The parties subsequently entered into a settlement, and Respondent No. 2 supported quashing, stating that the settlement was voluntary.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court.

The FIR alleged an offence under Section 387 IPC, and the Court recognised that an accusation of extortion ordinarily cannot be treated as a private dispute or closed merely through a private settlement.

Applying *Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para 27, the Court considered the timing of settlement, the material collected, whether continuation would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice, and whether the prospect of conviction was remote such that further proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The Court acknowledged the public character of an extortion allegation and the need for caution before quashing on the basis of a private settlement.

It nevertheless found the case suitable for quashing because the dispute arose between families who had known and worked with one another; the alleged demand was not met, no money or property changed hands, and no violence was alleged.

The complainant, to whom the alleged letter was addressed, affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that no consideration had passed. The trial had not commenced, and the complainant and his family members were unwilling to support the prosecution; in those circumstances, the Court considered a protracted trial futile under the principles in *Narinder Singh*.

The petition was disposed of, and the pending application was also disposed of.