High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26315/2018dismissed

Dharmendra Partap Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another

2018-07-20Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih2 pages

CRM-M-26315-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc. No.M-26315 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2018 Dharmendra Pratap Singh and another ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Raminder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No. 0470 dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences punishable under Sections 67/67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2). As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioners were having a Web Portal under the name and style of Star Haryana. On this portal, they were sending links to the public of porn videos. Respondent No.2 was aggrieved as she is also having her own web portal under the name and style of Star News. Many persons, who have been going to the Web Portal of Star Haryana are getting the links of porn videos, calling the petitioners for Sachin Mehta 2018.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-26315-2018 -2making inquiries about this.

From the allegations in the FIR, which was registered on the statement of respondent No.2, it is apparent that respondent No.2 was merely an informer and can settle the dispute only to the extent she was aggrieved. The offence reported by her is offence against the public for which she is not competent to enter into compromise. Keeping in view the above facts, quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise with respondent No.2 cannot be allowed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) July 20, 2018 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Sachin Mehta 2018.07.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH