Delhi High Court – Orders
Deepak Kumar Shonak & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 19 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1404/2026
DEEPAK KUMAR SHONAK & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Giroti, Mr. Nipun
Gupta & Mr. Vansh Malhotra,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State
with SI Mahesh Yadav, PS Dwarka
North.
Mr. Shaurya Dogra, Advocate
alongwith Aditya Singh, AR for R-
2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 19.02.2026
1. The petitioners have 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. 21/2026 dated 14.01.2026, registered at Police
Station Dwarka North, under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and all proceedings emanating
therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Shaurya Dogra,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 20:39:15
3. The petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by
their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Mr. Aditya
Singh, authorized representative of respondent No. 2, is also present in
person and identified by his learned counsel and the IO. An authorization
letter dated 24.12.2025 has been placed on record.
4. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. The allegations, as per the FIR, are that the complainant –
respondent No. 2, being M/s UNIQLO India Private Limited, discovered
that the prime accused – petitioner No. 1, an employee of the said
company, alongwith certain family members [petitioner Nos. 2 to 5], had
fraudulently manipulated the company’s online payment platform to
process forced manual refunds to themselves for high-value orders
without returning the purchased articles. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1
accessed the payment platform using a generic login ID, in breach of
authorization, and orchestrated multiple transactions resulting in wrongful
gain to the petitioners and a corresponding loss to the company
amounting to approximately Rs. 22,87,840/-.
6. The matter has, however, been settled within one month of
registration of the FIR. The parties have entered into a settlement,
recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding [“MoU”] dated
10.02.2026. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement
has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue
pressure. The settlement provides for payment of a total sum of Rs.
23,00,000/- to respondent No. 2, in two instalments. Rs. 16,10,000/-,
representing 70% of the settled amount, was paid by Demand Draft at the
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 20:39:15
time of execution of the MOU dated 10.02.2026. The balance of Rs.
6,90,000/-, representing 30% of the settled amount, was to be handed
over in Court at the time of the present quashing petition. Mr. Singh, the
authorized representative of respondent No. 2 – company confirms that
the entire settlement amount has been received.
7. In light of the above, the parties seek quashing of the impugned
FIR.
8. The Supreme Court has consistently held that High Courts, in
exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section
482 of CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings, even in respect of non-
compoundable offences, on the basis of a settlement between the parties,
particularly where no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr1. the Supreme Court has observed 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 on the public and consist in wrongdoing
that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and
it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law,
with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the
offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However,1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 20:39:15
certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,
where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the
victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of
the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the
High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that
on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will
depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be
2
prescribed.”
Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the
Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while
accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings.
The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement
and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power
is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 20:39:15
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to
have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.”4
9. In the present case, the offences alleged in the FIR arise from
corporate misconduct by petitioner No. 1 and certain family members,
involving misuse of the complainant company’s payment platform to
obtain refunds without returning the goods. The dispute is confined to
internal commercial dealings and does not involve any element of
heinous criminality. I do not discern any supervening public interest in
taking the matter to a logical conclusion. The parties have voluntarily
settled the matter, and the full settlement amount has been received by
respondent No. 2. An affidavit has also been placed on record by the
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 20:39:15
authorized representative of respondent No. 2 – company, affirming that
respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. In
these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would
serve no practical purpose and would only burden the judicial system
unnecessarily. There is, accordingly, no impediment to the grant of the
relief sought, and the FIR, alongwith all proceedings arising therefrom, is
fit to be quashed.
10. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition is allowed. FIR
No. 21/2026 dated 14.01.2026, registered at Police Station Dwarka North,
under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of BNS, alongwith all proceedings
arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
12. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
‘pv’/SD/
CRL.M.C. 1404/2026 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 20:39:15
