$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 DEEPAK KUMAR SHONAK & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amitesh Giroti, Mr. Nipun Gupta & Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Mahesh Yadav, PS Dwarka North.

Mr. Shaurya Dogra, Advocate alongwith Aditya Singh, AR for R-

2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

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