Vishal Verma v. State Of Haryana And ANR

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 15.07.2024 Vishal Verma .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.K. Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate for Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 0147 dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 66C and 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (for short- 'the Act') at Police Station NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad; wherein charges were framed under Sections 354-D, 469, 506 and 509 IPC and 66(C), 67 and 67-A of the Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties, entered into between the parties.

Pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court,

-2the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 15.06.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sole accused in the FIR. It is submitted that the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner due to some misapprehension on the part of respondent No. 2-complainant that some objectionable messages have been sent by the petitioner to the complainant. Even the mobile number from which the said messages are said to have been sent does not relate to the petitioner. Now, the better sense has been prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never been declared as proclaimed offender.

Learned State counsel has stated that he has 'no objection' in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

-3has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:- "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

-4from 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 view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 0147 dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 66C and 67 of the Act at Police Station NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad; wherein charges were framed under Sections 354-D, 469, 506 and 509 IPC and 66(C), 67 and 67-A of the Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties, entered into between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

15.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No