1. Petition seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 318 and 61 of BNS arising from a credit jewellery transaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Madhu Jain, J
Vansh Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 2239/2026 | CRL.M.A. 22365-2026
Important Points
A commercial dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution for cheating if the FIR alleges dishonest inducement from the inception. At the quashing stage, the court only examines if a cognizable offence is disclosed and cannot appreciate evidence to determine the truth of the allegations.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.226
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.528, S.35(3)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.318, S.61
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.528, S.35(3)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.318, S.61
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482
Headnote
(A) Quashing of FIR - Commercial Transaction vs. Criminal Offence - A mere breach of contractual or commercial obligation does not constitute cheating; however, where the FIR alleges that the accused induced the complainant to part with property through false representations and dishonest intention from the inception, the matter cannot be termed a purely civil dispute. (Para 21, 22, 26)
(B) Scope of Jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC - Appreciation of Evidence - While exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR, the Court must only examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence; the Court is not required to appreciate evidence or adjudicate the truthfulness of the allegations at the threshold. (Para 19, 20, 24)
Issues: Whether the FIR alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy in a commercial transaction should be quashed on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Scope of Jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC - Appreciation of Evidence - While exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR, the Court must only examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence; the Court is not required to appreciate evidence or adjudicate the truthfulness of the allegations at the threshold. (Para 19, 20, 24)
Issues: Whether the FIR alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy in a commercial transaction should be quashed on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Govind Rishi, Sandeep Kaushik, Kartikay Kaushik, Vaibhav, Gaurav Yadav, Shorya Goel
For the Respondents: Rupali Bandhopadhya, Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta, Rakesh Tiku, Manoj Gorkela, Saurav Pandey, Manish, Muntaqua Ahmed, Monu Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Govind Rishi, Sandeep Kaushik, Kartikay Kaushik, Vaibhav, Gaurav Yadav, Shorya Goel
For the Respondents: Rupali Bandhopadhya, Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta, Rakesh Tiku, Manoj Gorkela, Saurav Pandey, Manish, Muntaqua Ahmed, Monu Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued civil dispute given criminal colour; respondent argued FIR disclosed prima facie offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Court held that allegations of inducement and dishonest representation in the FIR require investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating, but specific allegations of inducement and dishonest intention at inception require investigation. (Para 21 , 22 )
5. Petition dismissed; court found no grounds for quashing FIR as allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
6. Does a mere breach of a commercial contract constitute the offence of cheating under Section 318 of the BNS?
No, a mere breach of a contractual obligation, in the absence of dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, does not constitute cheating. (Para 12 , 21 )
7. Can a court quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS based on disputed facts regarding dishonest intention?
No, the court cannot determine whether allegations of dishonest intention are true at the quashing stage; such matters require investigation and evidence. (Para 24 , 25 )
8. At what stage can the court determine if a dispute is purely civil or has a criminal colour?
At the quashing stage, the court cannot determine if the matter is purely civil if the FIR contains specific allegations of inducement and dishonest representation. (Para 26 )
9. What is the scope of the court's power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS?
The court must examine whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence; it cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence. (Para 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of FIR No. 437/2025 dated 30.10.2025, registered at P.S. Tilak Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
The brief facts of the case
2. As per the allegations in the FIR, in October 2023, the petitioner's mother, Sonia Verma, was introduced to respondent No. 2, proprietor of M/s Kasturi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., through a mutual acquaintance, Mahender Khera. It is alleged that thereafter, she became a regular customer of the showroom and made several jewellery purchases, initially making timely payments.
3. It is alleged that subsequently, the petitioner and his mother purchased jewellery on credit for an upcoming wedding, assuring respondent No. 2 that the outstanding amount would be cleared shortly. On the basis of their previous transactions and representations, jewellery was allegedly supplied to them against approval vouchers.
4. It is further alleged that towards part payment of the outstanding dues, the petitioner's mother issued a cheque for ₹60 lakh. However, upon subsequent follow-up, she allegedly shared a bank statement reflecting that the account was “debit frozen”. The complainant's employee thereafter allegedly followed up with the petitioner and his mother regarding the outstanding dues, which were stated to be approximately ₹1.48 crore.
5. It is alleged that despite repeated communications and sharing of invoices and approval vouchers, the outstanding amount remained unpaid. Consequently, a complaint was lodged before the Special Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, vide Diary No. 14565 dated 07.07.2025, pursuant to which the aforesaid FIR came to be registered.
6. During investigation, a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the petitioner on 04.12.2025 to join the investigation. The petitioner's mother was subsequently arrested on 05.01.2026. The Investigating Officer thereafter sought her judicial custody on the ground, inter alia,that the jewellery could not be recovered as she was allegedly not cooperating with the investigation.
7. Vide order dated 06.01.2026, the learned JMFC-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, declined the prayer for judicial custody and granted bail to the petitioner's mother.
8. Thereafter,thepetitionerapproachedthelearnedAdditionalSessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by way of an anticipatory bail application, which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.01.2026.
9. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of commercial transactions between the parties and has been given a criminal colour by the complainant. It is contended that the FIR does not attribute any specific role or overt act to the petitioner and does not contain any allegation of a false or dishonest representation made by him.
11. It is further submitted that the FIR itself records that payments had initially been made promptly, thereby negating any dishonest intention from the inception, which is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating under Section 318 of the BNS.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, at best disclose a breach arising from a credit transaction and do not make out the ingredients of a criminal offence. Reliance is placedupon Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 11 SCC 673, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to conten
