Sunita @ Sunita Arya And Others v. State Of Punjab And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40555-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 19.10.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024
Sunita @ Sunita Arya and others ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondent (s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 255 30.05.2024 City Barnala at Barnala 420, 419, 500 IPC, 1860 and 43, 66(c) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved persons. 2.
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the accused and the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3.
3.
After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondent no.2.
4.
Pursuant to order of this Court dated 22.08.2024, the aggrieved person (Respondent no.2), appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. The relevant extract of the report of the concerned Court reads as follows:
Name of the reporting Court Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala 1.
Names of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) Rupinder Gupta 2.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) were recorded 24.09.2024 3.
Has the identity of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s) been verified?
Yes 4.
Whether all the victims/ all the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter?
Yes 5.
Is there pressure, threat, or coercion upon the victim(s)/aggrieved person(s)/complainant?
No 6.
Names of the accused person(s) Sunita @ Sunita Arya, Mithu Kar and Satish Tayade 7.
Dates on which the statement(s) of the accused persons(s) recorded 24.09.2024 8.
Whether all the accused have compromised the matter? If no, then the names of the accused who have compromised.
Yes 9.
Whether proclamation proceedings are pending against any accused?
No 10.
Has the police report been filed or not?
No 11.
Notice of accusation /Charges have been framed or not?
No 12.
Sections of statutes invoked in the matter 420, 419, 500 IPC, 43, 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act, 2000 13.
Whether the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise?
Yes ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5.
An analysis of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that the offences alleged in the FIR have been committed against Neha Gupta (victim) only, but she has neither been arraigned as a respondent in this nor her statement has been recorded before the concerned Magistrate. She is even not a party to the compromise.
6.
Since all the victims did not state their no objection to the compromise and also the reasons which led to the compromise, as such this Court cannot proceed further in this matter.
7.
Given above, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition and there would be no necessity to re-examine the complainant and the accused, whose statements stand recorded. The copies of the statements along with report would suffice.
Petition dismissed in the terms mentioned above, with liberty reserved. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE October 2024 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No