Rauf Ahmed Wani v State of Punjab and another

Punjab And Haryana High Court

 24 August 2012

C R M - M No. 7299 of 2012

The Judgment was delivered by : Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 4, dated 24.1.2012, under Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of theInformation Technology Act, 2000, and Ss. 500 and 509, IPC, registered at Police Station, Punjab State Cyber Crime, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. 2. Vide order dated 4.4.2012, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 27.4.2012 before the learned Trial Court, for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to submit its report on or before the date fixed by this Court. 3. In compliance of the above, the complainant-respondent No. 2, Ms. Kriti Sood, as well as the petitioner, Rauf Ahmed Wani, did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, and got recorded their statements with regard to the compromise. Respondent No. 2, Ms. Kirti Sood, stated that she had effected a compromise with the petitioner in writing. The said compromise was correct and was reduced into black and white voluntarily. She further stated that the said compromise was effected without any pressure. She also stated that she had no objection if the accused was acquitted on the basis of the compromise. The accusedpetitioner also admitted the factum of the compromise. 4. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, reveals that the compromise was effected without any pressure and was voluntarily one. 5. Respondent No. 2, Ms. Kriti Sood, is present in the Court with her counsel, Ms. Nancy Kaushal, and admits the factum of the compromise. She also admits that she suffered the statement before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, on 30.4.2012. She also submits that she has no objection if the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed on the basis of the compromise and the petitioner is acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that after collecting the material, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., has already been submitted before the learned Trial Court, therefore, the present petition for quashing on the basis of the compromise, may not be accepted. He further submits that even if the complainant-respondent No. 2, does not support the case of the prosecution, yet, the material collected by the investigating agency would be sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty. 7. Heard. 8. The present dispute is amongst two young persons, who were imparting tuitions and were known to each other for the last sufficient long time. The petitioner has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of the Act and Ss. 500 and 509, IPC. The complainantrespondent No. 2, has voluntarily effected the compromise with the petitioner after sorting out her all disputes with him. The compromise deed has been placed on record. She has already suffered her statement before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, with regard to the compromise. The report submitted by the said Court reveals that the compromise effected between the private parties was without any pressure and voluntary one. The maximum punishment prescribed in all the offences for which the petitioner has been booked is up to three years. The complainantrespondent No. 2 who is present in the Court along with her counsel, Ms. Nancy Kaushal, has admitted the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the petitioner is acquitted. 9. Though learned counsel for the State, assisted by Inspector Sanjeevan Guru, has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but still this Court is of the considered view that pendency of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law since chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioner are bleak in view of the compromise effected between the parties. 10. Keeping in view the totality of the case, factum of the compromise effected between the private parties and the ratio of the judgment rendered by a 5-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 2007 Indlaw PNH 44 (P & H), present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR No. 4, dated 24.1.2012, under Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Ss. 500 and 509, IPC, registered at Police Station, Punjab State Cyber Crime, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. Petition disposed of