Synopsis

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 61(2), 143 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) relating to human trafficking and cheating. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and others induced the complainant to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- on the promise of arranging a work visa and employment in the USA, but instead facilitated illegal entry through “Dunki routes.” The complainant was apprehended at the US border and deported. The petitioner claimed that the matter had been settled with the complainant and sought quashing on that basis. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that offences of human trafficking and cheating vulnerable youth are not private in nature but have a wider impact on society. Such offences cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties, especially when the investigation is at a nascent stage. The court distinguished cases of commercial fraud and cheating in private transactions (e.g., Nikhil Merchant, Ramawatar) as inapplicable to offences involving human trafficking and exploitation.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Prateek Jalan

Date of Judgment: 16th April 2026

Citation: CRL.M.C. 280/2026

Core Law: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61(2), 143, 318; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61(2) (trafficking of persons), 143 (cheating), 318 (criminal breach of trust – possibly, though not explicitly detailed)

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 (saving of inherent powers of High Court – corresponds to Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 (inherent powers to quash proceedings)

Key legal principles applied

• Quashing on compromise – limited to offences of a private nature: The High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement is to be exercised sparingly. It is generally permissible where the dispute is predominantly private in nature (e.g., commercial transactions, matrimonial disputes, family settlements). However, it is not permissible for serious offences that have a wider societal impact, such as human trafficking, cheating of vulnerable individuals, economic offences affecting the financial system, and offences involving moral turpitude.

• Human trafficking is not a private dispute: The allegations in the FIR involved the organised activity of inducing vulnerable youth to pay

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.