Surendra Sankhla vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing proceedings of Criminal Case No. 300/2013 (State Vs. Surendra Sankhla) arising out of FIR No. 131/2013, Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 has filed an FIR No. 131/2013 at Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur on 4.6.2013 while alleging that her mobile number has been uploaded on Facebook by creating a fake ID and on account of that, she is facing great inconvenience, as unknown persons used to call her any time and abuse her on phone. It is alleged that the fake account on Facebook is in the name of Nisha Jain since 31st October, 2011.

The police after investigation has filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IT Act''. The trial against the petitioner is also pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police has falsely implicated the petitioner, though the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR or under Section 66A of the IT Act. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of complainant has been recorded by the trial court on 2.4.2014 wherein also she has specifically contended that the petitioner has not made any fake ID account on Facebook and has not displayed her phone number. In her statement, she has clearly stated that relation between the her family and petitioner are very cordial and they used to meet often and none of the members of the family of the petitioner has ever made any wrong call to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, in her statement recorded before the Court, has clearly stated that both the parties entered into the compromise and settled their dispute amicably. It is contended that the application, filed by the petitioner before the trial court to terminate the proceedings on the basis of compromise, has been rejected as the offence under Section 66A of IT Act is not compoundable. Learned counsel for the complainant has also verified the statement of the complainant recorded before the trial court and has submitted that the petitioner has never committed any wrong and the complainant does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner and she has no objection, if the proceeding, pending against the petitioner, is terminated. The factum of compromise between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has also been verified by the learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the statement of complainant recorded before the trial court on 2.4.2014.

The FIR No. 131/2013 dated 4.6.2013 of Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur was registered at the instance of the complainant against unknown persons. In the FIR, it is alleged that some persons have displayed mobile number of the complainant on a fake Facebook ID on account of that, the complainant has received calls from different numbers wherein she was abused. However, the complainant in her statement before the trial court has clearly stated that the petitioner has not uploaded her number on fake facebook ID. It is also stated by her that on account of compromise arrived at between her and petitioner, she does not want to continue the criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded before the court below during the course of trial, this Court is of the opinion that there is no likelihood that the petitioner would be convicted for the offences for which trial is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner and complainant have already arrived at compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

The Hon''ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 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."

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and proceeding pending against the petitioners can be quashed.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No. 131/2013 of Police Sardarpura, Jodhpur is quashed.