* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 29th October, 2025 Pronounced on: 06th November, 2025 + CRL.M.A. 19086/2022 in W.P.(CRL) 72/2021 JAI KUMAR GUPTA S/o Late Gajanand Gupta R/o 58, Antriksh, North-South Road No. 12, JVPD Scheme, Juhu Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400059 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Javed Ahmed, Mr. Inyant Ahmad and Ms. Aakriti Aditya, Advocates versus 1. THE STATE (GNCT of Delhi) 2. SH. KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA S/o Late Sh. Gajanand Gupta R/o 13/42, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi-l10026 .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. CRL.M.A. 19086/2022 1. The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the recalling of the Order dated 15.01.2021 in W.P.(CRL) No. 72/2021, whereby FIR No. 0227/2020 under Sections 120B/ 379/ 406/ 419/ 420/ 424/ 465/ 467/ 468 IPC and the IT Act was quashed in terms of a Family Settlement dated 31.07.2019. 2. It is submitted in the Application that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2/Applicant had requested the quashing of the FIR based on the Family Settlement dated 31.07.2019, followed by Settlement Deeds dated 27.11.2019 and 03.11.2020 executed between the parties. The parties had stated that they would remain bound by the terms of the Settlement. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed. 3. It is submitted that in terms of the Family Settlement dated 27.11.2019, Respondent No. 2 transferred Shop No. 66, opposite Hudda Shopping Complex, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana, in January 2022, and also handed over the possession of the Zakhira Office to the Petitioner. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 approached the Petitioner for the transfer of the land at Rajokari in terms of the Settlement dated 27.11.2019, but the Petitioner started avoiding Respondent No. 2, which gave rise to suspicion about the Petitioner’s intentions. 4. Respondent No. 2 visited the Rajokari property and discovered that the Petitioner had already sold the property to Ashok Yadav without the knowledge and consent of Respondent No. 2, even though this land was to be transferred to Respondent No. 2. Furthermore, after the quashing of the FIR, the Petitioner has not performed any act in compliance with the Family Settlements dated 27.11.2019 and 03.11.2020. It appears that the Family Settlement had been executed to scuttle the investigation/inquiry in the registration of the FIR, and the consent of Respondent No. 2 was obtained based on a misconception. 5. The recall of the Order dated 15.01.2021 is sought on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to act in terms of the Family Settlement Agreement. The Applicant’s consent was taken under a misconception, which does not amount to consent under Section 90 IPC, as was agreed and stated in the Affidavit on oath before this Court. The parties had stated that all the disputes had already been reconciled and settled amicably vide MOU/Family Settlement dated 27.11.2019, the terms of which were to be adhered to by the parties in true letter and spirit. 6. Respondent No. 2 performed his part of the Agreement as undertaken by him. It is further asserted that no act has been done by the Petitioner in compliance with the Family Settlements after the FIR was quashed. Moreover, the Petitioner filed his Affidavit and undertook to honor the Settlement despite having conscious knowledge of the sale of the Rajokari land way back in 2020, which indicates his criminal and malicious intention in the entire matter. 7. Because of the discovery of this new fact by Respondent No. 2, he has sought the recall of Order dated 15.01.2021 vide which FIR No. 227/2020 stands quashed. 8. The Petitioner/Jai Kumar Gupta has filed a Reply wherein it is submitted that this FIR pertained exclusively to the investigation of shareholding related to Best Roadways Limited and did not encompass the property located in Rajokari, New Delhi. Given the distinct separation of subject matters, the issue pertaining to the property in Rajokari cannot serve as a legitimate basis for the recall of the Order dated 15.01.2021. 9. It is further contended that the Applicant/Respondent No. 2 cannot attempt to interconnect this unrelated fact or issue with the FIR, which did not involve the newly discovered facts. The Application appears to be primarily motivated by the intent of harassment and intimidation, particularly considering the Applicant’s past conduct, which has been less than straightforward. The Applicant has chosen to withhold crucial facts; it is the Petitioner/Jai Kumar Gupta who bears the ethical responsibility to present a complete picture before this Court in the pursuit of natural justice, which is founded on the totality of the facts. 10. Respondent No. 2 has already preferred a Petition before this Court seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator essentially on identical allegations. In response, the Petitioner, along with other concerned parties, has already submitted a comprehensive Counter Affidavit/Reply in the said proceedings. It is imperative to recognize that the Applicant should not be permitted to employ harassment tactics by simultaneously pursuing civil and criminal remedies. It becomes abundantly clear that he has deliberately withheld critical material facts and conspicuously avoided mentioning key details, possibly driven by undisclosed motivations known to Respondent No. 2 himself. 11. The Petitioner has denied that the consent of Respondent No. 2 was obtained under any misconception or false promises regarding the fulfillment of terms outlined in the Family Settlements dated 31.07.2019, 27.11.2019, and 03.11.2020. The petitioner never lacked the intention to abide by the terms of the Settlement, and the averments so made are baseless. The property in Rajokari, New Delhi, in terms of the Settlement dated 03.11.2020, rightfully came to his share. Consequently, there was no necessity for Respondent No. 2 to visit the aforesaid property. Best Roadways Limited, acting upon the instructions of the Respondent No. 2/Kamal Kumar Gupta, sold the property in Rajokari in exchange for his share in the properties of Rajokari. The Petitioner/Kamal Kumar Gupta undertook the acquisition of properties in CGTA, Calcutta, SCO Complex, Sector 18, Gurgaon, and a small plot in Rail Awas. Additionally, the Petitioner has fulfilled all his financial obligations and has made payments totaling Rs. 44,48,225/- to Respondent No. 2’s Company, Times Logistic Limited, on 29.11.2022. 12. Furthermore, on 01.12.2022, an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was transferred to Respondent No. 2 by the Petitioner through his account for consideration of share transfer. Another payment of Rs. 50 lacs was remitted to Respondent No. 2 through the account of Suryansh Gupta on 14.12.2022, all of which transpired subsequent to the filing of the present Application. 13. It is asserted that Respondent No. 2 is attempting to obscure the actual transfer of properties and the ongoing payments made by the Petitioner even after the registration of the FIR. Baseless allegations, inconsistent with factual circumstances, do not carry any credibility from the perspective of Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that since the said property was owned by M/s Best Roadways Limited, the property could not have been transferred in any individual name. The legal transfer of the said property at Rajokari was impractical by any stretch of imagination, and the said property had been sold even prior to the registration of the FIR in 2021 at P.S. EOW, Mandir Marg. This fact was very much within the knowledge of Respondent No. 2/Kamal Kumar Gupta. 14. It is emphasized that subsequent to the three Settlements, Respondent No. 2 instigated the formulation of a 4th Settlement through his Advocate and communicated it to Sh. S.C. Gupta via WhatsApp. Additionally, he may be directed to adhere to the terms delineated in his own drafted mooted Settlement. Consequently, he cannot be considered to have any credible standing on which to anchor his claims. Pertinently, the date when he became aware of the sale of the Rajokari property has not been mentioned. Given that this property has no relevance to the Applicant, he cannot find any fault regarding the sale of this property or invoke its reference in the Application. It is denied that all the disputes, which were previously believed to be settled, have resurfaced or necessitate further investigation by the Police. Additionally, the claim of fraud perpetrated by the Petitioner upon the Court is vehemently rejected. It is, therefore, submitted that the Application is without merit and is liable to be rejected. 15. Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 2 has argued on similar lines as the contentions made in the Application. It is asserted that though both parties had given an undertaking that they would abide by the terms of the Settlement, the Petitioner has reneged by making a false statement about the Rajokari property, which already stood sold much prior to the execution of the Settlement. There were three properties sold by the Petitioner, one before the compromise and two others subsequently, which have been concealed by him. 16. Though Respondent No. 2 had received some cheques, it is contended that the Petitioner has failed to fulfill his obligations under the Settlement and, therefore, Order dated 15.01.2021 of quashing of the FIR needs to be set aside and the case decided on its merits. 17. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has contended that, first and foremost, since the property at Rajokari had been sold much prior to the Settlement, there was another Settlement dated 03.11.2020 that was entered into between the parties, which has not been recorded, under which the Petitioner had already transferred alternate properties to Respondent No. 2. Furthermore, as per the terms of the Settlements, the parties had an option to seek Arbitration, which has been availed by Respondent No. 2 whose Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator has been allowed, but till date, no further action has been taken by Respondent No. 2. It is further contended that, even on merits, the averments made in the FIR do not disclose any offense under Section 420 IPC. 18. It is thus submitted that the Application lacks merit and should be dismissed at the outset on merit. 19. Furthermore, Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the given circumstances for the recall of the Order vide which the FIR has been quashed. Reliance has been placed on Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine 1148. Submissions heard and record perused. 20. Admittedly, an FIR No. 227/2020 dated 22.10.2020 was registered against the Petitioner on the complaint of Respondent No. 2. The parties arrived at detailed Settlements dated 31.07.2019, 27.11.2019, and 03.11.2020. These settlements encompassed not only the dispute which was the subject matter of the FIR but also all other disputes inter se the parties.\ 21. First and foremost, a technical objection has been taken that Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for recalling an Order quashing the FIR. In the case of Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172, the scope of the powers under Section 362 Cr.P.C. was discussed. It was held that the legislative scheme, as delineated by Section 362 Cr.P.C., places an embargo on the Criminal Courts from altering or reviewing its judgments. The purpose and object is that the criminal justice delivery system does not vest Criminal Courts with power to alter or review the judgment or a final order disposing of the case except to correct arithmetical or clerical errors. Once the judgment is delivered by the Criminal Court or a final order is passed disposing of the case, the Court becomes functus officio, and any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Similar observations have been made in the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (2001) 1 SCC 159. 22. Further, in the case of Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal (1981) 1 SCC 500, it has been held that the inherent powers of the High Court, saved by Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be affected by the saving provisions contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., which, while prohibiting altering and reviewing of its judgments, is subject to "otherwise provided by this Court or by any other law for the time being in force." It was held that these words refer only to those provisions where the Court has been expressly authorized by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment, and Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the given circumstances. 23. In the recent case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, the scope of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been succinctly explained. Furthermore, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 observed that it saves the inherent power which the Court possesses under the Code in three circumstances, which are: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of the justice. 24. The Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from those expressed provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. This doctrine which finds expression in this Section merely recognizes and preserves inherent power of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal, possesses in the absence of any expressed provision, and as inherent in the Constitution, holds such powers as are necessary to do the right or to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex alilquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest. 25. Similar facts had came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana 2025 SCC OnLine 1148 wherein the law was summarized thus: (i) The bar under Section 362 Cr. P.C. is almost absolute; (ii) The only exceptions to the bar, which would then permit the invocation of inherent powers, would be if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice; or to remedy the abuse of the process of law. Other than the above two circumstances, such inherent powers do not permit the doing of what stands prohibited by the text of the statute; (iii) To clarify, it may be stated that when a Court finds itself in such extraordinary circumstances, the reasons for exercising such power should be recorded, justifying the invocation thereof. 26. The facts in the said case were similar to the present one, and it was held that once the criminal cases have been quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of a compromise entered between the parties, the subsequent violation of the terms by one of the parties cannot be a basis to recall such an order of quashing. A ground that one of the parties has violated the terms thereof is entirely foreign to law or to the power to recall the order of quashing. Violation of the terms of a compromise must be pursued through their own legal avenues by which they can be enforced. 27. Now, in the present case as well, the FIR on the basis of the Settlement was quashed by an Order dated 15.01.2021, while the present Application was filed on 19.09.2022, i.e., after more than one and a half years. It is pertinent to note that the Settlement itself provided that in case of any dispute, the parties are at liberty to invoke arbitration. In fact, Respondent No. 2 had filed the Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been allowed by an Order dated August 8, 2024, despite which he has taken no further steps for getting the Arbitrator appointed. Furthermore, as has been rightly pointed out, the Petitioner has performed his part of the agreement and has given the amount of Rs. 44,48,225/- to Respondent No. 2, which has been duly accepted by him. 28. Also, it has been contended that this FIR pertained to the shareholding of Best Roadways Limited Company about which the Settlement has been duly complied with. The sole ground which has been taken by Respondent No. 2 for recall of the Order dated January 15, 2021, of quashing is that his consent was obtained by misconception, as it was not disclosed that the property at Rajokari already stood sold. It is pertinent to observe that this property was sold even prior to the registration of the FIR. Any grievance of Respondent No. 2 in this regard is amenable to the alternate remedy as has been contemplated in the Settlement itself or in accordance with law. 29. The circumstances do not warrant any recall of Order dated 15.01.2021. Also, such recall is not permitted in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. 30. There is no merit in the present Application, which is hereby dismissed. (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 06, 2025 N CRL.M.A. 19086/2022 in W.P.(CRL) 72/2021 Page 11 of 11