Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 796 (RAJ)

Sharad Rathi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-27

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-Sharad Rathi, with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 213/2013 dated 22.04.2013 of Police Station, Pratap Nagar, District Jodhpur, for the offence punishable under Section 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and proceeding in furtherance thereto and in the alternative it is also prayed that the application preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Salim Bagani for withdrawal of criminal complaint may kindly be allowed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, proceedings under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was initiated against the petitioner. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have entered into compromise and resolved the dispute between them amicably. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the parties have entered into compromise, the proceedings under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 pending against the petitioner may kindly be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that the dispute between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already been settled and the respondent No. 2 has filed an application before the Investigating Officer requesting that on account of compromise arrived between the parties he wants to withdraw the impugned FIR and does not wants to prosecute of the petitioner under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 but the Investigating Officer is not paying any heed to the said request. The respondent No. 2, present in person also confirms the contention of his counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In this case, it is an admitted position that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No. 2 has filed an application before the Investigating Officer with a prayer for quashing the prosecution against the petitioner. Today also, the respondent No. 2- Saalim Bagani, present in person and his counsel have categorically stated that now the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as the dispute has already been resolved between them. 6. Today also, the respondent No. 2- Saalim Bagani, present in person and his counsel have categorically stated that now the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as the dispute has already been resolved between them. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, JT 2012(9) SC 426 , 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. 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." 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No. 2 has moved application for withdrawal of the complaint against the petitioner under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is a fit case wherein the proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 can be quashed. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No. 213/2013 dated 22.04.2013 of Police Station, Pratap Nagar, District Jodhpur and the proceedings pending thereto against the petitioner are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition Dismissed. *******