Delhi High Court – Orders
Mr Samarth Khanna vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 24 February, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8091/2025
MR SAMARTH KHANNA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ekansh Mishra, Mr. Sanat
Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP.
SI Shiwangi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 24.02.2026
1. The matter was originally scheduled to be listed on 21.02.2026;
however, in view of the Elections of the Bar Council of Delhi on
21.02.2026, and pursuant to Notification No. 62/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated
20.02.2026, it has been listed today.
2. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioner seeks the
quashing of FIR No. 68/2025 dated 08.06.2025, registered at Police
Station Barakhamba Road under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 [“IPC“]. The FIR in question arises from the petitioner’s alleged
failure to appear in separate proceedings instituted against him by
respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 [“NI Act“].
3. Mr. Ekansh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act have since been
CRL.M.C. 8091/2025 Page 1 of 4
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 26/02/2026 at 20:34:36
compromised, and that the petitioner has been acquitted by an order of
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) – 04, Patiala House
Courts, dated 10.02.2026. A copy of the said order has been handed up in
Court and is taken on record.
4. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and confirms the settlement,
stating that no further amount is due to him and that he has no objection
to the quashing of the present FIR.
5. In the present case, Mr. Mishra submits that the petitioner had, in
fact, shifted his residence to Canada prior to the filing of the complaint
and had no knowledge of the institution of the proceedings, as the process
was never served upon him.
6. Mr. Mishra has drawn my attention to an order passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Chauhan v. The State of NCT of
Delhi & Anr.1, which arose under substantially similar circumstances. In
that case, the underlying proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had
been settled between the complainant and the accused during the
pendency of the proceedings, yet a FIR under Section 174A IPC had been
registered against the accused. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Narender Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.2
and Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.3, the Coordinate
Bench in Amit Chauhan observed as follows:
“9. Even though the offence under Section 174A of the IPC is a
separate offence and is not dependent on the outcome of the
proceedings in which the non-appearance led to filing of the
complaint, however, considering that the 138 NI Act Complaint has1
CRL.M.C. 5978/2025, dated 11.11.2025 [hereinafter, “Amit Chauhan”]
2
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
3
(2017) 9 SCC 641.
CRL.M.C. 8091/2025 Page 2 of 4
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 26/02/2026 at 20:34:36
already been compounded in the present case, in the opinion of this
Court, no purpose would be served by continuing the present
proceedings.
10. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the fact that the
parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that
continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process
of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise
discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
11. However, since the chargesheet has been filed and the State
machinery has been put to motion due to the act of the petitioner of
non-appearing before the Court for which no possible explanation has
been provided, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to
cost.
12. In view of the above, FIR No. 153/2024 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost
of ₹20,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police
Welfare Society, within a period of six weeks.”
7. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, however, submits that Section 174A of the IPC constitutes an
independent offence with implications for the administration of justice.
She further submits that, if the Court is inclined to quash the proceedings,
it may be appropriate to impose substantial costs upon the petitioner.
8. In view of the above judgment, I am of the view that there is no
impediment to the grant of the relief sought in this petition. As in Amit
Chauhan, the underlying proceedings have already been settled, and little
purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section
174A of the IPC.
9. However, I accept Ms. Arya’s submission that, having regard to the
public resources expended during the pendency of the litigation, the
petitioner ought to be directed to bear costs.
10. Accordingly, FIR No. 68/2025 dated 08.06.2025, registered at
Police Station Barakhamba Road under Section 174A IPC, alongwith the
CRL.M.C. 8091/2025 Page 3 of 4
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 26/02/2026 at 20:34:36
proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to the
petitioner depositing costs of Rs. 25,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar
Association Costs Account [A/C No. 15530110179338; IFSC No.
UCBA0001553; UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch]. The aforesaid
deposit shall be made within two weeks from today, and proof of
compliance shall be filed in the Registry within one week thereafter.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
SS/SD/
CRL.M.C. 8091/2025 Page 4 of 4
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 26/02/2026 at 20:34:36
