Suresh Kumar Baweja v. State Of Haryana And Another

N.C. No.2024:PHHC:035013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9079-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.03.2024 SURESH KUMAR BAWEJA ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Amarbir Singh Shergill, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SANJIV BERRY. J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) executed between the parties. Details of the FIR are as follows:

FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 17.01.2021 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 Old Industrial, Panipat, District Panipat 2.

With the intervention of respectables and elderly people of the society, the parties have arrived at a settlement vide compromise deed dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), which is duly signed by them. The matter was referred to the Court below for recording of statements of the parties and to report with respect to genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat vide report dated 07.03.2024 SANDAL SHARMA 2024.03.12 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

N.C. No.2024:PHHC:035013 CRM-M-9079-2024 (O&M) -2has apprised this Court that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure. The petitioner has also deposited the cost of Rs.5,000/- in compliance to the order dated 20.02.2024. 3.

Respondent No.2 is represented by his counsel and does not oppose the compromise.

4.

In view of the aforesaid report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and "Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another", (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose can be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending, since the complainant has himself compromised the dispute with the petitioners/ accused persons. 5.

In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.42 dated 17.01.2021 under Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Old Industrial Panipat, District Panipat (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise qua the present petitioner. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 12.03.2024 S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/ No SANDAL SHARMA 2024.03.12 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment