Bakar Hussain @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings

pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, (North) No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case

No.411/2017 for the offence under Section 67 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act of 2000’).

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur has

registered an FIR No.34/2015 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under

Section 66A of the Act, 2000 in the trial court and during the course of trial, the trial court discharged the petitioner from the offence under

Section 66A of the Act of 2000, however, charge for the offence under Section 67 of the Act of 2000 was read over to the petitioner to which

he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, before framing of the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have moved an

application while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may

be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 31.5.2018 has rejected the application on the ground that the offence is not compoundable by

virtue of provisions of the Act of 2000.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into

compromise, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000. It is also

argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the

Act of 2000 because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2

does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000.

The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC â€

426 has held as below:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be

exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have

settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise

of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity

or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have

settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim

and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants

while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal

cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the

offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony

relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their

entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the

offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression

and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and

compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to

continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite

settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is

put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the

criminal proceeding.â€​

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent no.2 have already

entered into compromise, there is no possibility of petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit

case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate,

(North) No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.411/2017 for the offence under Section 67 of the Act of 2000 are hereby quashed.