Delhi HC Quashes Handset-Supply FIR Against Dixon, Padget Under ₹50 Lakh Settlement With Buyer

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 representatives induced ACPL to procure 17,730 Alcatel handsets from Padget Electronics Private Limited; ACPL paid Padget approximately ₹24.16 crore, which was allegedly used to clear NXTCELL’s earlier dues, and some handsets were allegedly of Dubai rather than Indian specification.

Dixon Technologies, Padget, Pankaj Sharma and Himanshu Maheshwari sought quashing of the FIR.

They later settled with ACPL under an agreement dated 28 September 2026, which provided for payment of ₹50 lakh and conversion of the Dubai-specification stock to Indian specification; ACPL consented to quashing qua those parties.

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

The State informed the Court that they had joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power 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, proceedings for non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute predominantly bears a civil or commercial character and settlement makes continuation unjust; however, offences affecting the State’s financial or economic well-being may warrant refusal.

The Court also relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, on compromise-based quashing.

For anticipatory bail, the Court considered the documentary nature of the case and the absence of a demonstrated need for custody, referring to Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 291, and the factors in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, including the nature of the allegations, cooperation, risks of flight or interference, and the necessity of arrest.

The Court treated the dispute between ACPL and the settling parties as a private commercial dispute, noting that no public money or statutory body was involved and that the inter se grievance had been resolved through a mediated settlement.

ACPL’s consent, the settlement terms and the parties’ undertaking to cooperate with the EOW supported quashing qua Dixon, Padget, Pankaj Sharma and Himanshu Maheshwari; the Court made that relief conditional on continued compliance with the agreement and cooperation in the investigation.

As to the bail applicants, the State confirmed that they had joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Given the documentary nature of the case and their continued interim protection, the Court found anticipatory bail appropriate, subject to safeguards against non-cooperation, foreign travel without permission, witness interference and evidence tampering.

Since the FIR had been quashed qua the petitioners in the earlier quashing petitions, those 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 for the like amount, subject to the stated conditions.

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