Delhi High Court
Jaspal Singh Khokhar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 September, 2025
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11.09.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ CRL.M.C. 1364/2024
JASPAL SINGH KHOKAR & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Narender, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya with Insp. B
M Bahuguna and SI Dhanjay
Gupta, PS Kirti Nagar.
Mr. Sanjay S. Chhabra, Mr.
Satish Choudhary, Advs. for R-
2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No.154/2009, dated
09.06.2009, registered at P.S Kirti Nagar, Delhi under section
420/467/471/506/120B IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom
on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. As per allegations made in the FIR, complainant (since
deceased), co-owner of property C-1/9, Rajouri Garden, alleged that
petitioners fraudulently forged documents, including a false will and
gift deed, to illegally grab the property which originally belonged to
their late mother, Prem Kaur, who died intestate. He further states that
despite partition proceedings pending before this court, the petitioners
threatened him and his wife with dispossession and creating nuisance.
Thereafter, complainant filed FIR No. 154/2009, dated 09.06.2009, at
P.S Kirti Nagar, Delhi under sections 420/467/471/ 506/120B IPC
against the petitioners.
3. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their
disputes and executed the terms of settlement in writing by a
Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2024. In view of the aforesaid
settlement 45% share of the property bearing no. C-1/9, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi is in favour of complainant and remaining 55% in
favour of petitioner no. 3 with others renouncing all claims over the
property and undertake never to assert any rights. It is further
submitted that the abovementioned property shall be sold in the open
market to the highest bidder with sale negotiations, execution must be
through joint participation of parties and the entire sale consideration
shall be received at one time on execution of the Sale Deed, not by
bayana (advance) or part payment, unless mutually agreed in writing.
It is further submitted that after sale and receipt of full consideration,
the respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 shall jointly pay Rs. 1 crore
each to the persons named in the settlement, within 1-2 weeks of sale
completion. Copy of the settlement Agreement has been annexed as
Annexure P-9.
4. It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings
complainant (deceased respondent no. 2) passed away and thus he is
being represented by his legal heirs. The copy of the amended memo
of parties has also been placed on record in this regards.
5. Wife of respondent no. 2 and petitioners are physically present
before the Court while daughters of respondent no. 2 have entered
their appearance through VC. They have been identified by their
respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Dhanjay
Gupta, from PS Kirti Nagar
6. Respondents confirm that the matter has been amicably settled
with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and they have no
objection if the FIR No. 154/2009 is quashed against the Petitioners.
7. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned
Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the
present FIR No. 154/2009 is quashed.
8. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of
disputes by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would
be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings
would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put
to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceedings."
9. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482
of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court
can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of
the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned
parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675.
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties
have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with the present FIR No. 154/2009, dated 09.06.2009,
registered at P.S Kirti Nagar, Delhi under sections
420/467/471/506/120B IPC and all the other consequential proceeding
emanating therefrom.
11. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.
154/2009, dated 09.06.2009, registered at P.S Kirti Nagar, Delhi under
sections 420/467/471/506/120B IPC and all the other consequential
proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.
12. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
September 11, 2025/SK
