[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Karan Rastogi & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 April, 2026
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13thApril, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2776/2026&CRL.M.A. 11238/2026
KARAN RASTOGI & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranshu Gosain, Advocates along
with petitioners.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP with
SI Manish.
Mr. Malik, Advocate for R-2 with R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 345/2025 dated
11.12.2025, registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, for commission
of offences under Sections 318 (4) BNS (corresponding Section 420 IPC),
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. According to complainant-Vasudha Malik (respondent No.2 herein),
she had contacted Edukap Services, managed by the petitioner, which used to
give information and guidance for admission in LLB in University situated in
Gurugram.
3. On the basis of assurance, the complainant had paid them Rs. 20,000/-
and submitted all documents for processing of her admission but, there was
some dispute related to the admission process, and when the complainant
sought for refund of amount, it was denied.
4. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that when she reported the matter, it
resulted in registration of FIR.
5. However, in the interregnum, the parties have been able to settle all
their disputes and have entered into a written settlement dated 10.04.2026.
6. As per terms of settlement, besides refunding the abovesaid amount of
Rs. 20,000/-, the accused persons have made another payment of Rs. 20,000/-
towards compensation.
7. Respondent No.2 appears through video-conferencing. Her father, who
is a practicing advocate, is present in court and represents her. The
Investigating Officer (I.O.)-SI Manish is also present and identifies her and
submits that investigation is, otherwise, complete, albeit, charge-sheet has yet
not been filed. He submits that in relation to the allegations appearing in the
present FIR, he has not received any complaint from any other person.
8. All the petitioners are present in Court.
9. Petitioner No.2 is counsellor and petitioner No.3 is junior counsellor in
Edukap Services.
10. Since the respondent No.2 has received the entire amount and
compensation also, she is not interested in pursuing the present FIR. She
states that she would have 'no objection' if the FIR is quashed. She also states
that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of her own free will
without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever.
11. The FIR has been registered for commission of offence under Section
318(4) BNS (corresponding Section 420 IPC), which is compoundable in
nature.
12. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and the fact that parties
have settled their all disputes amicably and respondent no. 2 does not want to
pursue her complaint against petitioners herein, continuing with criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
13. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed
appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
14. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 345/2025 dated
11.12.2025, registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, for commission
of offences under Sections 318 (4) BNS (corresponding Section 420 IPC)
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
15. Original affidavits and MoU of the parties, copies of which have been
placed on record in the present proceedings, shall be submitted to the
concerned SHO/IO within two weeks.
16. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
17. The pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 13, 2026/sw/pb
