AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)
Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.127 dated 21.08.2025, under Sections 318(4), 61 of BNS, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Karnal, Haryana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 12.12.2025 said to be arrived at between the parties.
The FIR alleges that on 03/08/2025, accused created a fake Facebook ID using fake number in the name of Complainant’s friend, Bhushan Kumar who lived in US and talked to complainant on Facebook Messenger stating that he will deposit Rs. 5 Lakhs into Complainant’s account and will take it back once he returns to India. Falling into the trap, the Complainant sent his Aadhar Card through his mobile number. The accused then said that he had deposited Rs. 10,30,800/- into the account of Complainant, also sent a slip of Western Union. Accused told the Complainant that since a huge amount had been deposited in his account, he will get a call from the bank. As stated, the call came and the person stated himself to be the employee of bank and asked the Complainant to collect the money by cash or cheque and to bring his Aadhar Card. Thereafter, the accused again contacted complainant, asking for Rs.2,55,000/- stating that he needed them for visa renewal. He sent mobile number of an agent in Mumbai who called the complainant asking for the said money and for this, he sent bank account numbers of 3 persons, namely, Varun Kumar, Akash Kohli and Neeraj Saket. Complainant deposited Rs.4,59,984/- via various transactions in the said accounts on 03.08.2025. Post this, accused stopped picking complaint’s calls. He then asked his friend Bhushan for the money, who denied both giving and taking the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR was result of misunderstanding between the parties which had been resolved to maintain peace and harmony, with the intervention of respectables. In view of the compromise Annexure P-2, respondent No.2 had decided not to proceed further against the petitioner and not to pursue the futile litigation. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of law.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Badri Mandal and others v. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 14010 observed as under:-
“13.As a sequitur of the above rumination, the following postulates emerge:
I. The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court ought not be exercised for quashing of an FIR/Criminal Complaint, pertaining to the allegations of cyber fraud, solely on the basis of compromise/settlement. The pervasive public detriment and the systemic erosion of trust, irrevocably, supersedes, the purely private remedial adjustment, achieved between the complainant/victim and the accused.
II. Whereas meticulous judicial appraisal of facts reflects that the cyber fraud allegations have been strategically invoked to lend unwarranted gravity and seriousness to otherwise simpliciter pecuniary transaction inter-se the Complainant/victim and the accused, the Court must not permit the rigidity of law to defeat the ends of justice and may sanction the bona fide compromise/settlement to put an end to the lis.
III. To effectually determine as to whether the case in hand falls within the ambit and scope of postulate (I) or postulate (II) (supra), the Court must undertake a scrupulous and granular scrutiny of the entire factual milieu of the case at hand.
No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid-down for exercise of aforesaid judicial discretion by a Court as every case has its own unique factual conspectus. There is no gainsaying that an order passed by the Court, while exercising such discretion, must be a speaking order clearly giving out reasons therein & must be in consonance with the basic canons of Justice, good conscience and equity………..)
It is nobodys case that the complainant and the petitioners were known to each other in the past or there was any prior transaction between them. It cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of the case that the dispute involved is personal in nature. A compromise with perpetrators of cyber crime cannot be equated with compromise between private parties, who seek to resolve their differences to usher in peace and harmony. The only consideration for the compromise between petitioners and respondent No.2 appears to be monetary compensation and unwillingness to take the trial to its logical end. Offences like the present one have far reaching consequences on the digital eco system and adversely impact commercial activities. Ultimate victim is the collective. Such crimes have immense societal impact and quashing of the FIR by way of a compromise would neither secure the ends of justice nor would prevent abuse of the process of court nor it can be said that no evidence will come on record and the chances of conviction are remote. On the contrary, societal interest would suffer in case compromise in such crimes is allowed. If perpetrators of such an organised crime are let off on the basis of compromise, on settlement arrived at with the complainant on payment of monetary compensation, the sanctity of criminal justice system would be at stake.
The petition for quashing of FIR No.127 dated 21.08.2025, under Sections 318(4), 61 of BNS, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Karnal, Haryana, on the basis of compromise dated 12.12.2025 is accordingly dismissed.
Observations made in this order shall not be treated as expression of opinion on merits of the case and learned trial court shall proceed to decide the criminal case on the strength of evidence led before it.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.