FIR alleging compoundable cheating may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS following amicable settlement.

The petitioners were accused in FIR No. 89/2026 registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, District Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning an alleged transaction for the sale of two plots at Shakti Enclave.

The complainant alleged that she had paid ₹28,00,000 to the accused, but the transaction was not completed and the amount was not returned.

The petitioners initially sought anticipatory bail and quashing of the FIR.

During the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation and executed a settlement dated 1 July 2026.

The complainant received ₹35,00,000 under the settlement, confirmed that she had no surviving grievance, and consented to the grant of bail and quashing of the FIR.

The investigation was pending and no chargesheet had been filed.

With the complainant’s consent and the State leaving the matter to the Court, the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of settlement.

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR could be treated as a petition for quashing on the basis of the subsequent settlement between the accused and the complainant.

Whether FIR No. 89/2026 under Sections 420/34 IPC and all consequential proceedings should be quashed in exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the settlement and the complainant’s consent.

Whether the connected anticipatory-bail applications survived after quashing of the FIR.

The Court applied Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning cheating, read with Section 34 IPC, and noted that the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable.

It exercised the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The governing principle applied was that where the parties have amicably settled a dispute, the complainant has received the agreed amount, and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court may quash the proceedings in appropriate cases, particularly where the dispute is essentially private or civil in nature.

The Court verified the FIR, the mediation settlement, and the voluntary statements of the parties.

The complainant was present, identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer, confirmed receipt of ₹35,00,000, and expressly stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Since the dispute arose from a private property transaction, the amount had been fully restored, the complainant asserted that she retained no right or interest in the plots, and the investigation had not culminated in a chargesheet, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

Considering also that Section 420 IPC is compoundable, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

The petitioners were directed to provide proof of deposit and the original affidavits to the SHO/Investigating Officer within a further two weeks.

The original documents retained by the Investigating Agency were directed to be returned, as the complainant had no objection and their retention was unnecessary after quashing of the FIR.

The writ petition was disposed of, and the three connected anticipatory-bail applications were dismissed as infructuous because the FIR itself had been quashed.