$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1048/2025 SHITIZ SHARMA AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Surya Nath Pandey, Mr.

Ravinder Kumar and Ms. Pooja Kumari, Advocates.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Devender Yadav, PS Vikas Puri.

R2 in Person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. The petitioners have 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. 53/2016 dated 11.01.2016, registered at Police Station Vikaspuri, District West, New Delhi, under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 against three accused persons, namely the petitioners herein and one Naveen Sharma. It is alleged that petitioner No. 2 and Naveen Sharma introduced respondent No. 2 to petitioner No. 1, who represented himself as the owner and in lawful possession of a property situated in Village Nawada, New Delhi. Acting on such representations and assurances, respondent No. 2 agreed to purchase the said property for a consideration of Rs.7,70,000/-, pursuant to which an Agreement to Sell and other conveyance documents were executed in his favour. However, physical possession of the property was not handed over to Respondent No. 2, and it was subsequently discovered that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi had imposed a ban on the registration of sale deeds in respect of the area in which the property was situated.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the aforesaid persons. The present petition, however, concerns only the petitioners herein, as the proceedings against the co-accused, Naveen Sharma, stand abated due to his death on 20.02.2022.

4. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, as recorded in a Compromise Deed dated 12.05.2017. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

5. The petitioners are present in Court, and have been identified by their learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is present in person, and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is appearing in person and has declined the assistance of counsel, including legal aid counsel.

6. The settlement records that the parties have settled their disputes for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, payable by the petitioners to Respondent No.

2. Respondent No. 2 acknowledges receipt of the said amount.

7. Notwithstanding the allegation of forgery, Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that no public documents have been forged, and that the allegedly forged documents have not been presented before any public office.

8. The parties also confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

9. Although the offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC are non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], 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. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303], has held 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 exer