Delhi High Court – Orders
Hyline Logistics Pvt Ltd And Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 27 April, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~116-Q
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3210/2026
HYLINE LOGISTICS PVT LTD AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ritu Gupta, Mr. Ashish
Kumar, Advocates with petitioner
No.2 and 3 in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
with SI Anupam.
Mr. Shraman Sinha, Mr. Rishi Raj
Ojha, Advocates for R 2, 3, 4 along
with the said R- 2, 3, &4 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 27.04.2026
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. 393/2022 dated 30.04.2022, registered under
Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC“] at P.S.
Seemapuri, District Shahdara, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Shraman
Sinha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3,
and 4.
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 1 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is
taken up for disposal.
4. The complainants are the wife and children of Late Trilochan
Singh Vohra, who was a Director and shareholder in the petitioner No. 1
Company [“Company”]. Petitioner No. 2 is at present one of the
Directors and shareholders of the Company, whereas petitioner No. 3 was
a Director and shareholder till 01.04.2024.
5. The prosecution case, emerging from the subject FIR, is as follows:
a) The deceased held 24.5% shareholding in the Company, and
owned a residential property in Gurugram;
b) Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly took control of the Company
after the demise of the deceased in 2020;
c) The complainants applied on 08.07.2021 for transmission of shares
in their favour, but the petitioners failed to process or respond;
d) The petitioners allegedly illegally withheld the share transfer,
preventing the complainants from exercising shareholder rights and
participating in the affairs of the Company;
e) The dividends payable in respect of the shares were
misappropriated;
f) The complainants allege that the accused manipulated accounts by
showing fictitious expenses, suppressing profits, and syphoning
funds for personal use. An internal email and financial records
indicate unaccounted cash transactions and possible money
laundering, including entries of large, unexplained amounts;
g) The petitioners also allegedly failed to repay a loan of Rs.
18,96,000/- taken from the deceased;
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 2 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
h) After the death of the deceased, petitioner No. 2 allegedly
threatened the complainants to renew a mortgage/Overdraft facility
and claimed influence over bank officials of ICICI Bank to
withhold the Gurugram property title deed;
i) Bank officials (who have also been named in the complaint)
allegedly colluded with the petitioners and retained the title deed,
thereby preventing the complainants from mutating or otherwise
dealing with the property;
6. I am informed that no chargesheet has been filed till date.
7. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties entered into a
settlement with an aim to put a quietus to the ongoing disputes. The
settlement was recorded in the Court of District Judge, Commercial
Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, on 20.11.2025. The
settlement contemplates a payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- to respondent No. 2
in full and final settlement of all claims of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The
petitioners also agreed to instruct ICICI Bank to return the original title
deeds of the said property. The parties agreed to withdraw/quash all
pending litigation between them.
8. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are present in person and are identified by
their counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent
Nos. 2 – 4 are present in Court, and have been identified by their counsel
and the IO.
9. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.
10. The Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances,
the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of the
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 3 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], can quash criminal
proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the
ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the
complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely
affected. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.1, which held 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, 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 on1
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 4 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised
where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category
can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender
in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the criminal case is put to an end and if the
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 5 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
2
proceeding”
Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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
(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
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 6 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
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
4
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
11. The present case arises out of disputes pertaining to shareholding,
transmission of shares, and alleged financial improprieties within a
Company, alongwith claims relating to a loan transaction and retention of
title documents of a property. The underlying dispute is essentially
private in nature, emanating from inter se disagreements between the
parties, without any element of grave criminality or overriding public
interest, which requires the proceedings to be taken to their logical
conclusion. It is also a matter of record that the parties have since
amicably resolved their disputes, and Respondent Nos. 2-4 have, of their
own volition, affirmed the settlement. In such circumstances, the
likelihood of the proceedings culminating in a conviction appears remote,
and their continuation would serve no useful purpose, except to burden
the criminal justice system and result in an unnecessary expenditure of
judicial time and resources.
12. The settlement contemplates payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- to
respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and affirms that
the entire settlement amount has been received by her. ICICI Bank has
also returned the original title deed of the property to respondent No. 2.
There is therefore no impediment to the grant of the relief sought.
13. Having regard to the above, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.
4
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 7 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
393/2022 dated 30.04.2022, registered under Sections 420/34 of the IPC
at P.S. Seemapuri, District Shahdara, Delhi, alongwith all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
15. The petition, alongwith pending application, accordingly, stands
disposed of.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 27, 2026
SS/JM/
CRL.M.C. 3210/2026 Page 8 of 8
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 30/04/2026 at 20:49:37
