Mool Chand vs State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5350 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13908 OF 2025)

MOOL CHAND ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the

High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.3650 of 2025, the

appellant/accused No.1 is before this Court. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA Date: 2025.12.17 16:47:29 IST Reason: 1

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2-

complainant and his wife, respondent No.3 herein, while on a

search for a plot of land to construct a house, met the appellant,

who represented himself as a reputed real estate agent of the

Burari area. He further represented that he had a good plot for

sale suitable for the requirements of respondent No.2, which was

free from all encumbrances. Based on the assurances and in view

of the reasonable price quoted, respondent No.2 agreed to

purchase a two-sided open “L” type plot measuring 57 sq. yards

situated in Ajit Vihar, Burari, Delhi-110085 (‘suit land’). The

appellant informed respondent No.2 that the suit land was in the

ownership and possession of his associate, accused No.2, who was

interested in selling the same on an urgent basis as he was in dire

need of funds. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 and accused No.2

entered into an agreement with respect to the purchase of the suit

land for Rs.21,66,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Sixty-Six

Thousand only). On 04.08.2021, a bayana agreement was

executed and notarised, and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs only) was paid to accused No.2. It is alleged that

accused No.2, in conspiracy with other accused persons, induced

2 respondent No.2 to part with his money and that on payment of

the entire sale consideration, when respondent No.2 went to visit

the suit land he had purportedly purchased, he came to know that

appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 in conspiracy with other

accused persons had sold the plot to someone else.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, FIR No.278 of 2022, dated

16.03.2022, came to be registered with P.S. Burari, District North

Delhi, against the appellant herein and other accused persons

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

5. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet bearing

No.13 of 2022 came to be filed on 16.06.2022 against the appellant

herein and three other accused persons under Sections 419, 420,

467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

6. Subsequently, to amicably resolve the dispute, appellant,

respondent No.2, and respondent No.3 entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’), which was executed on

08.11.2024. By way of the said MoU, the appellant undertook to

pay respondent Nos.2 and 3 a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten

3 lakhs only) in instalments towards full and final settlement of all

their claims. Reciprocally, respondent Nos.2 and 3 agreed to

cooperate and give their statement of settlement as and when the

appellant applied for bail and thereafter for quashing of the

criminal proceedings against him.

7. On execution of the aforesaid MoU, the appellant paid

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) in cash as

the first instalment. Thereafter, pursuant to being enlarged on

regular bail, appellant paid the second instalment of Rs.3,50,000/-

(Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) to respondent Nos.2 and

3.

8. Subsequently, appellant filed a petition bearing Crl. M.C.

No.3650 of 2025 before the High Court under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), for quashing

of FIR No.278 of 2022 registered with P.S. Burari, District North

Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

9. In compliance with the terms of the settlement, respondent

Nos.2 and 3 also filed their respective affidavits in support of the

aforesaid quashing petition preferred by the appellant.

4

10. Thereafter, for the purpose of recording the statement of

parties, the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar of the Delhi

High Court. By order dated 22.05.2025, the Joint Registrar

recorded the submissions made on behalf of appellant and

respondent Nos 2 and 3 separately, to the effect that the matter

had been amicably settled between them by executing the MoU

dated 08.11.2024. It was further recorded that the said settlement

was arrived at between the parties without any force, coercion,

undue influence or pressure. Based on the statements made by the

parties as well as the fact that the MoU was duly signed by the

parties, the Registrar observed that the consent of both parties was

genuine and not obtained under undue influence or pressure.

Accordingly, the matter was listed before the High Court.

11. Pursuant to the Joint Registrar’s order, appellant paid the

balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) in

compliance with the terms of the settlement arrived at between the

parties.

12. However, by the impugned order dated 30.05.2025, the High

Court dismissed the petition bearing Crl. M.C. No.3650 of 2025,

based on a submission made before the Court that there were other

5 persons accused in the FIR in question, as well as the fact that

respondent No.2 and his wife had been cheated by the appellant,

who was the property broker, to pay money to other accused

persons. It was further observed that the money had not yet been

recovered. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that some

of the accused persons, were not even parties in the quashing

petition, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings as

against appellant.

13. Hence, the present appeal.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

A.S.G appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.3 herein is wife of

respondent No.2/complainant.

15. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the

appellant drew our attention to the fact that there has been a MoU

arrived at between the appellant herein and respondent Nos.2 and

3 on 08.11.2024 under which a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten

lakhs only) has been paid by the appellant to respondent Nos. 2

and 3. A copy of MoU is produced at Annexure P-3. She, therefore,

6 submitted that the dispute between the appellant respondent

Nos.2 and 3 is essentially a civil dispute and has culminated in the

MoU which has been complied with by the appellant herein

inasmuch as a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by the

appellant to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the impugned order

may be set-aside and the criminal proceedings may be quashed by

allowing this appeal.

16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 acknowledged

the fact that the aforesaid sum has been received by the said

respondents. Hence, appropriate orders may be made in this

appeal.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore, submitted that

these developments in the matter may be taken note of and the

complaint as against the appellant herein may be quashed by

exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

18. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that

he has no objection if the complaint as against the appellant herein

is quashed. However, he submitted that he would pursue the

complaint as against the other accused.

7

19. Learned A.S.G. appearing for respondent No.1/State

submitted that, no doubt, there may be an understanding arrived

at between the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, if

this Court is to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the

appellant and quash the proceedings as against the appellant by

exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the

same ought not to adversely affect the prosecution against the

other accused. Learned A.S.G. also apprehended that the

complainant may not cooperate in the criminal trial as against the

other accused.

20. In response to this apprehension expressed by learned A.S.G,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that

settlement of the dispute between the appellant herein and

respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide MoU dated 08.11.2024 would not in

any way be an impediment to the prosecution of other accused;

that the complainant would assist the prosecution as against the

other accused. Therefore, he submitted that the State may not

have any apprehension on that score.

8

21. We have taken note of the submissions advanced at the Bar.

We have considered the terms and conditions of the MoU. We note

that the appellant herein was a real estate broker, who introduced

accused No.2 to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

22. Unfortunately, respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that they

have been cheated. However, we find that there has been a

settlement of the dispute which is essentially a civil dispute

between the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned

counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has sought to allay the

apprehensions expressed by learned A.S.G. in the matter. In the

circumstances, by exercising our power under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, the criminal complaint(s) as against the

appellant herein only is/are liable to be quashed and hence is

quashed.

23. We also observe that quashing of the complaint(s) as against

the appellant herein would not be an impediment for the State to

prosecute the other accused in accordance with law. Further,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall assist the prosecution in prosecuting

the other accused. Consequently, FIR No.278/2022 dated

16.03.2022 filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B 9 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at

P.S. Burari, District North Delhi, stands quashed as against the

appellant herein.

24. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

25. Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………..J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………..J. (R. MAHADEVAN)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 28, 2025.

10