Legal Review and Analysis of Mool Chand vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors 2025 INSC 1448
Case Synopsis
Mool Chand vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2025 INSC 1448
Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Against Settling Accused in Multi-Party Fraud, Upholds Continuance of Trial for Other Co-Accused.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Mool Chand vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2025 INSC 1448 (Supreme Court of India)
2. Related Laws and Sections
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34.Constitution of India:
Article 142: Power of the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The Appellant, Mool Chand, represented himself as a real estate agent and introduced the Complainants (Respondents 2 & 3) to another accused for purchasing a plot. An agreement was executed and money paid, but the Complainants were allegedly cheated as the plot was sold to someone else. An FIR was registered for cheating and forgery. Subsequently, the Appellant and the Complainants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 08.11.2024, whereby the Appellant agreed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as full and final settlement. The Complainants received the entire amount and agreed to cooperate in quashing proceedings against the Appellant.
Issues in the Judgment
Whether the criminal proceedings (FIR No.278 of 2022) against the Appellant can be quashed based on a settlement agreement with the Complainants, even though other co-accused persons are still facing trial.
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the Appellant. The Court reasoned that:
The dispute, stemming from a failed real estate transaction, had a predominant civil character. The settlement via the MoU, where the Complainants were fully compensated, resolved the core grievance.
The Complainants confirmed receiving the settlement amount and had no objection to quashing the case against the Appellant, though they wished to proceed against the other accused.
To prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings specifically against the Appellant.
The Court imposed a condition that the quashing would not impede the State's prosecution of the other accused, and the Complainants must assist the prosecution in the ongoing trial against them.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Article 142 and Compounding in Multi-Accused Cases
Issue and Subject Matter
This judgment addresses the nuanced exercise of the Supreme Court's plenary power under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings against a singular accused based on a private settlement, while the prosecution against other co-accused for the same offence continues.
Analysis and Explanation of the Core Principle
The Supreme Court navigated the conflict between the principle of allowing settlements in offences with a civil flavour and the necessity of continuing prosecution where conspiracy or multiple actors are involved.
Distinguishing the Appellant's Role: The Court implicitly distinguished the Appellant's role as a broker from the actions of other accused (like the alleged owner). This allowed for a compartmentalized view of his liability, which was severable and capable of being resolved through compensation to the victims.
Invocation of Article 142: The Court explicitly used its power under Article 142 to do "complete justice." This was crucial because standard precedents on quashing based on settlement often require that the dispute be entirely private and that quashing should not affect the case against other accused. Here, the Court crafted a tailored solution: quashing for the settling accused alone while keeping the trial alive for others.
Balancing Interests: The judgment balances multiple interests:
Victim's Interest: The Complainants received full monetary restitution, addressing their primary harm.
Accused's Interest: The Appellant, having made amends, is spared a protracted criminal trial.
State's Interest: The State's right to prosecute the other alleged conspirators remains intact. The Court also secured an undertaking from the Complainants to assist this prosecution, mitigating the State's apprehension about witness hostility.Predominant Civil Dispute: The underlying rationale is that when the alleged offence arises essentially from a breach of a civil transaction (like a sale agreement), and the victim is made whole, continuing criminal prosecution against the repentant accused may be a futile exercise. The Court treated the cheating allegation against the broker in this context.
5. Final Outcome of the Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court. Exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court quashed FIR No.278 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings only against the Appellant, Mool Chand. The prosecution against the other accused was to continue, with a direction that the Complainants (Respondents 2 & 3) shall assist the State in that trial.
6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Mool Chand vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025 INSC 1448), the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant primarily by exercising its power under?
A. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
B. Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
C. Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
D. Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Question 2: In the aforementioned judgment, while quashing the FIR against the settling accused, the Supreme Court specifically directed that?
A. The entire FIR and proceedings against all accused must be quashed.
B. The State must compound the offence for all accused.
C. The prosecution against the other co-accused shall continue, and the complainant shall assist it.
D. The complainant must return the settlement amount to the state exchequer.