Pushpa H. S. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Geetha K.B. J

Learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C./359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S., 2023') praying for permitting them to compound the offences punishable under Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 R/w Section 318(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S., 2023') in Crime No.33/2026 of C.E.N. Police Station, Crime No.1, Ballari.

Both parties have filed their affidavits annexed to this application and this application is duly signed by both parties and those signatures are identified by their respective counsels.

Petitioner and respondent No.2 are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsels. Learning HCGP is present and submits no objection to this joint memo.

The allegation against the present petitioner in the first information filed by Respondent No. 2 is that, on 08.03.2026 at 11:00 a.m., the respondent No.2 received a phone call from the petitioner (mobile number 9901941484), wherein he stated that the petitioner was running a trading/business Company and that would give profit and induced respondent No.2 to pay ₹15,50,000/- through online and afterwards, she has not returned the said amount and not given any profit to the complainant. Then, first informant has lodged the first information on 24.04.2026 before C.E.N. Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.33/2026.

Presently petitioner and respondent No.2 have compromised the matter and respondent No.2 reports receipt of ₹99,999/- through PhonePe and Demand Draft No.929613 drawn on DCB Bank, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore, for ₹13,00,000/- and praying for compounding the offences.

Offence under Section 318(3) of B.N.S., 2023 is compoundable under Section 359(2) of B.N.S.S., 2023, but offence under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is non-compoundable.

Even in case of non-compoundable offences, the Court may quash the proceedings. In this regard, this Court relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein, at paragraph No.61, held as follows:

"61. 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that it is the discretion of the High Court to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

In instant case, the allegation is that the petitioner has committed cheating upon respondent No.2 and made him to pay ₹15,50,000/- to the petitioner. Now the parties have settled the dispute for a sum of₹14,00,000/- and respondent No.2 reports the receipt of the same as stated above through PhonePe and also through Demand Draft.

Relying on the principles noted in the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, as the dispute is mainly of civil in nature and as parties have settled the dispute amicably; this Court is of the opinion that, if proceedings against petitioner allowed to be continued, then that would be a futile exercise and it will be abuse of process of law.

Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is allowed.

ii) The FIR in Crime No.33/2026 of C.E.N. Police Station alleging the offences punishable under Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318(3) of B.N.S., 2023 is hereby quashed.