1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR for offences involving fraudulent manipulation of company payment platform. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Deepak Kumar Shonak – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amitesh Giroti, Nipun Gupta, Vansh Malhotra
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya, Shaurya Dogra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amitesh Giroti, Nipun Gupta, Vansh Malhotra
For the Respondents: Manjeet Arya, Shaurya Dogra
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (or Section 482 CrPC) to quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is primarily commercial or civil in nature and the parties have settled, ensuring the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of FIR - Settlement between parties - Inherent powers of High Court - High Courts may quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is predominantly of a civil or commercial nature and the parties have settled amicably, provided no overarching public interest is adversely affected. (Para 8, 9)
(B) Commercial Disputes - Misconduct involving corporate payment platforms - Where the alleged offences arise out of commercial transactions and the possibility of conviction is remote due to a settlement, continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility and burden the judicial system. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the FIR registered for fraudulent manipulation of a company's payment platform can be quashed on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the accused and the complainant company.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- commercial law
Table of Contents
2. Parties sought quashing of FIR on ground of amicable settlement and receipt of full settlement amount. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Dispute arose from commercial corporate misconduct lacking heinous criminality; no supervening public interest; continuation would burden judicial system. (Para 9 )
4. High Court may quash non-compoundable offences on settlement if dispute is predominantly civil and no public interest is affected. (Para 8 )
5. Petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between parties?
Yes, where the dispute is predominantly civil and no overarching public interest is adversely affected, the High Court may quash proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What types of offences are not suitable for quashing on the basis of settlement?
Heinous and serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, offences of mental depravity, and offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 8 )
8. What is the guiding factor for a High Court when exercising inherent power to quash proceedings on settlement?
To secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. (Para 8 )
O R D E R
% 19.02.2026
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. 21/2026 dated 14.01.2026, registered at Police Station Dwarka North, under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Shaurya Dogra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Mr. Aditya Singh, authorized representative of respondent No. 2, is also present in person and identified by his learned counsel and the IO. An authorization letter dated 24.12.2025 has been placed on record.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
5. The allegations, as per the FIR, are that the complainant – respondent No. 2, being M/s UNIQLO India Private Limited, discovered that the prime accused – petitioner No. 1, an employee of the said company, alongwith certain family members [petitioner Nos. 2 to 5], had fraudulently manipulated the company’s online payment platform to process forced manual refunds to themselves for high-value orders without returning the purchased articles. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 accessed the payment platform using a generic login ID, in breach of authorization, and orchestrated multiple transactions resulting in wrongful gain to the petitioners and a corresponding loss to the company amounting to approximately Rs. 22,87,840/-.
6. The matter has, however, been settled within one month of registration of the FIR. The parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated 10.02.2026. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure. The settlement provides for payment of a total sum of Rs. 23,00,000/- to respondent No. 2, in two instalments. Rs. 16,10,000/-, representing 70% of the settled amount, was paid by Demand Draft at the time of execution of the MOU dated 10.02.2026. The balance of Rs. 6,90,000/-, representing 30% of the settled amount, was to be handed over in Court at the time of the present quashing petition. Mr. Singh, the authorized representative of respondent No. 2 – company confirms that the entire settlement amount has been received.
7. In light of the above, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.
8. The Supreme Court has consistently held that High Courts, in exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings, even in respect of non- compoundable offences, on the basis of a settlement between the parties, particularly where no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr, (2012) 10 SCC 303.. 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 futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet ce
