CRL.M.C./2315/2025 of INTERNATIONAL PRINT O PAC LTD. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 2315/2025

INTERNATIONAL PRINT O PAC LTD......Petitioner

Through:Appearance not given

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......Respondents

Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for theStatewithSIPriyankRana,PSDaryaganjStatewithSIPriyankRana,PSDaryaganj

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Rajat Asija,Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person(through VC)Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person(through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%12.09.2025

1.The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](corresponding to Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 44/2024 dated 13[th]January, 2024, registered under Sections 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860[3]at P.S. Darya Ganj and all consequential proceedings emanatingtherefrom.

2.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the Petitioner is asfollows:

2.1.A complaint was filed by Narsingh Dass & Co. Pvt. Ltd., company

1 “BNSS”

2 “CrPC”

3 “IPC”

CRL.M.C. 2315/2025

engaged in the business of trading of paper, through its Director Mr. KapilGupta, against the Petitioner – International Print-O-Pac Ltd. In thecomplaint, it is alleged that the Petitioner, through its Directors, induced thecomplainant to supply large quantities of paper on the assurance of timelypayment.

2.2.Relying on these assurances, the complainant supplied goods to thePetitioner on several occasions. As per the complainant’s books of account,an outstanding sum of INR 79,55,705/- remains due. It is further alleged thatthe Petitioner never intended to honour its commitments.

2.3.In December 2019, when pressed for clearance of dues, the Petitionerallegedly assured repayment and proposed further transactions against BankLCs. Although certain payments were realised through the bank, thePetitioner is said to have delayed acceptance of LCs and createddiscrepancies in documentation, resulting in additional charges to thecomplainant and non-clearance of part of the dues.

2.4.When the complainant again demanded settlement, representatives ofthe Petitioner allegedly refused payment and issued threats of direconsequences. The prosecution contends that the Petitioner induced supplyof goods by deception, dishonestly withheld payment, and therebycommitted criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. On the basis ofthe complaint, the present FIR was registered on 13[th]January, 2024 underSections 406 and 34 IPC.

3.The parties state that they have amicably resolved their disputes anddifferences, and Respondent No. 2 has voluntarily decided not to pursue theimpugned FIR. In this regard, and in settlement of the present and other interse disputes between the parties, Settlement Agreement dated 30[th]January,

CRL.M.C. 2315/2025

2025 has been executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

4.The Petitioner has produced copy of the Board Resolution dated 30[th]August, 2025 in favour of Mr. Kapil Gupta, Director of the complainantcompany. The copy is handed over across the board and is taken on record.

5.Mr. Kapil Gupta, who has joined the proceedings through the VideoConferencing mechanism, confirms the settlement as well as the BoardResolution passed in his favour. He further confirms the SettlementAgreement dated 30[th]January, 2025, under which Respondent No. 2 hasreceived sum of INR 50,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of all itsclaims/dues against the Petitioner. In light of the settlement, he states thatRespondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

6.The Court has considered the aforenoted submissions. It is pertinentto note that the offence under 406 of IPC is compoundable, albeit with thepermission of the Court, and only at the instance of the aggrieved party.However, that does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherentpower under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC)and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.

7.Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the fact that theaggrieved parties have amicably settled the matter, this Court is of the viewthat continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.In the circumstances, this is fit case for exercise of jurisdiction underSection 528 of BNSS, as the continuance of proceedings would amount toan abuse of the process of law and impede the ends of justice.

8.In view of the above, and considering that the State machinery hasbeen put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the Petitionercompany is put to cost.

CRL.M.C. 2315/2025

9.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 44/2024dated 13[th]January, 2024, registered at P.S. Darya Ganj and all consequentialproceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment ofa cost of INR 10,000/- by the Petitioner to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund,within period of four weeks from today.

10.The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.11.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with any pendingapplication(s).11.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with any pendingapplication(s).

SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J

CRL.M.C. 2315/2025