$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7057/2025 SANJAY GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shorya Goel, Mr. Sammeer Vatts, Advocates alongwith Petitioner in Person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State Mr. Namanveer Singh Sodhi, Advocate alongwith R-2 & 3 in Person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 39/2020 dated 06.03.2020, lodged at Police Station Defence Colony, Delhi, under Sections 406/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Namanveer Singh Sodhi, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2&3. 3. The impugned FIR was lodged on the complaint of respondent No.

2-Company through its director, who is impleaded as respondent No. 3. The accused in the FIR is the petitioner, who was also the director of respondent No. 2-company and two other companies i.e. RSRN Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Nicky Marmo Ltd, who are impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein.

4. The dispute concerns allegations of misappropriation of funds of respondent No. 2. The complaint alleges that the petitioner herein, a promoter-director of respondent No. 2, committed criminal breach of trust and cheating by deliberately failing to submit a board resolution mandating joint operation of the company’s ICICI bank account, thereby unilaterally transferring and siphoning company funds, including diversion of loan repayments from BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd. to third-party companies [respondent Nos. 4 and 5] and to himself, causing wrongful loss of about Rs. 1.95 crore to the company. There were also several civil litigations between the parties.

5. The litigations have all been settled by a mediated settlement agreement dated 24.09.2025 to which the present petitioner, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are party. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 are also related to each other. The settlement involves resolution of all the disputes, and the litigations arising out of it.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been identified by the Investigating Officer [“IO”] as well as by his learned counsel. Respondent Nos. 3 has also been identified by his learned counsel and the IO.

7. Learned counsel for the parties state that settlement has also been implemented fully.

8. The parties have settled their disputes voluntarily. The settlement is supported by board resolution of respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3, which specifically refers to the settlement of the disputes in the present FIR. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also agreed not to pursue the FIR in question and to cooperate with the petitioners in the present quashing petition. Respondent No. 3 states that he has no objection to the FIR being quashed in its entirety.

9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC], can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303., the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in fu