Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
HAMMAD AHMED & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 720/2023 & CRL.M.A. 14314/2023, CRL.M.A.25311/2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
Result: Petition Allowed. (Paras 1, 10, 17)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Bobby Lau, Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, Ms. Puniya Rekha Angara, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara N., Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjun Singh Mandla
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC, Mr. Arjit Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Jha, Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Simran Mehta, Ms. Divyanshi Saxena, Mr. Udit Bhatiani
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under article 226 and public interest for quashing (Para 1) |
| 2. amicable settlement in family disputes leading to quashing (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. allegations of breaches post-settlement should not affect quashing (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's power to quash based on previous decisions and settlement adherence (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. assessment of private vs public interests in criminal proceedings (Para 14 , 16) |
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [“ BNSS ”] (pari materia Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr.P.C.”] seeks quashing of FIR no. 0089/2014, [“the impugned FIR”] dated 11th March, 2014 registered under Sections 34 /406/408/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , [“ IPC ”] at P.S. Kamla Market. This prayers rests on a settlement between the parties.
2. The factual backdrop, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. The FIR was registered of the basis of a complaint lodged by M/s Hamdard Laboratories (India), a Trust, through one of its trustees, Mr. Asad Mueed (Respondent No. 2/Complainant), against two other trustees, Mr. Hammad Ahmed and his son Mr. Hamid Ahmed (the Petitioners), and certain associates.
2.2. The gravamen of the allegations is that the Petitioners, while occupying key positions in the Sales and Marketing Department of the Trust, entered into a conspiracy with certain private entities, including M/s Shree Ranisati Sales Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arora Sales Corporation, and M/s Eden Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., to cause wrongful loss to the Trust by issuing unauthorized credit notes and permitting goods to be supplied on credit in violation of contractual terms.
2.3. It is alleged that Mr. Hammad Ahmed facilitated the appointment of M/s Eden Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as a “Super Distributor”. Although, the contractual terms mandated cash-only transactions, supplies were made on credit in violation thereof. Supplies worth approximately INR 1.76 crores were made on credit, which remained unpaid. It is further alleged that M/s Arora Sales Corporation, having outstanding dues exceeding INR 7 crores, operated from the same address as M/s Eden Enterprises and shared a common director, Mr. Rakesh Arora. These circumstances point towards a possible conspiracy between the entities.
2.4. The investigation revealed financial links between the entities and the individuals involved, as well as their association through common directorships in other companies such as M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Indo Herbal Health Care Co., the latter allegedly a sham entity used for siphoning funds.
2.5 On the basis of these findings, a chargesheet was filed on 30th November, 2021 against the Petitioners and others for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 408, 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC . The matter is currently pending before the Court of CMM, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. The Petitioners are now seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of a Family Settlement Deed dated 22nd October, 2019, [“Settlement Deed/settlement”]. As per the Settlement Deed, the parties have agreed, inter alia, to withdraw all pending litigation and cooperate in effecting such withdrawal. Clause 10 of the Settlement Deed specifically provided that:
“10. The Parties also agree that they will withdraw and/or compromise all pending litigation; which is described more particularly in Annexure-II to this Family Settlement Deed. Both the Parties agree to cooperate with each other in securing such withdrawal and/or compromise of the abovementioned litigation. The Parties shall jointly take steps in this regard within a period of 30 days from the sanctioning of this Settlement by the Court.”
4. In pursuance of the above, Respondent No. 2 himself approached this Court by way of writ petition [W.P.(CRL.) 883/2021 titled Hamdard Laboratories India & Anr. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.] seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. In that p
