$~87-Q

O R D E R

% 21.04.2026

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. 60/2025 dated 06.12.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, [“BNS”] at Cyber Police Station, Outer District, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. The petitioner is present in person and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and has been identified by his learned counsel and the Investigating Officer.

3. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were known to each other, as they were employed in the same organisation, namely ATH Support Services Pvt. Ltd., as Customer Service Executives. The impugned FIR came to be lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, alleging that she was cheated and induced to part with a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- on account of an online financial fraud.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 28.01.2026, Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), has filed a status report dated 10.02.2026. As per the said report, the FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2 herein, who, in March 2025, was induced by the petitioner/accused, on the false pretext of securing employment at IGI Airport, Delhi. Acting upon such representation, respondent No. 2 transferred a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the accused in his Axis Bank account; however, neither was any job provided nor was the amount returned. The investigation further reveals that the said amount was initially credited to the account of petitioner and was subsequently dispersed across multiple bank accounts.

5. Mr. Ansari, on instructions from the Investigating Officer present in Court, submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that no other complaints are pending against him. It is further submitted that the present case does not appear to involve a multi-victim cyber fraud.

6. The parties have since amicably resolved their disputes, as recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 07.01.2026. In terms of the said settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement of all claims. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already furnished a banker’s cheque dated 05.01.2026 for the aforesaid amount.

7. Respondent No. 2 has affirmed before the Court that he has received the entire amount in terms of the settlement. Learned counsel for the parties further confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure.

8. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR.

9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in appropriate circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], may quash criminal proceedings, including those relating to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise, particularly in cases where such quashing does not adversely affect any overarching public interest.

10. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.¹1 (2012) 10 SCC 303., which 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 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