In a significant development from the Delhi High Court, Justice Ravinder Dudeja on Monday quashed an FIR lodged by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against Vishal Yadav and his associate. The court's order came after the parties reached a full and voluntary settlement over a high-value business transaction gone wrong.
The case revolved around unpaid dues in an international PVC resin export deal worth over USD 1.15 million, a dispute that has now ended with what the judge called a "fair and amicable resolution."
Background
The FIR in question - No. 14/2023, registered at the EOW police station - accused Yadav and another petitioner of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the petitioners had induced the complainant company to export large consignments of PVC resin to Essential Tradexpo Pvt. Ltd. on a 60-day credit basis. Once the goods were shipped, payment allegedly never came.
The complainant approached the EOW, alleging deliberate deceit and financial misconduct. However, what began as a criminal investigation has now concluded in a handshake - thanks to a detailed settlement agreement executed in October 2023
Court Proceedings and Settlement
The matter was heard in the Delhi High Court on October 13, 2025, in the presence of both petitioners and the authorised representative of the complainant company, who joined virtually.
The court noted that the entire settlement amount of ₹51,80,231 (equivalent to about USD 62,225) had been paid by the petitioners as per the agreed schedule.
"Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled without any fear, coercion, or pressure," the court recorded.
Even the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, expressed no objection to quashing the FIR, acknowledging that the dispute was private and had been fully resolved.
Court's Observations
Justice Dudeja, while dictating the oral judgment, referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings that encourage settlement in cases of private or commercial nature where continuing criminal proceedings would serve no purpose.
Citing the landmark case Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the judge remarked that courts must weigh whether continuing prosecution "would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice."
The bench observed,
"When parties have genuinely resolved their disputes without coercion, it would be unjust to perpetuate criminal proceedings that only prolong animosity."
He also relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, where the Supreme Court held that non-compoundable offences could be quashed if the core dispute was civil or personal and had been amicably resolved.
Decision
After hearing both sides and confirming the authenticity of the settlement, the court concluded that there was no justification for keeping the FIR alive.
"In view of the amicable resolution and complete payment made, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR," Justice Dudeja ruled.
However, the court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 each on the petitioners, directing them to deposit the amount with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within a month.
With that, the petition was allowed and disposed of, effectively closing the case that had once threatened to escalate into prolonged criminal litigation.
Case Title: Vishal Yadav & Anr vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) - W.P. (CRL) 335/2024
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Sujeet Beniwal and Mr. Deepak Chillar, Advocates (Petitioners were present in person.)
Counsel for State (Respondent No. 1): Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates
and SI Lakhan (EOW).
Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advocate Authorised Representative of R-2 appeared via Video Conferencing.